Posts

Biosecurity Must Not Breach Our Rights

,

I’ve been pressing the federal government on its oversight of the fire ant eradication program. While Canberra funds half of this national program, responsibility for delivery lies with the Queensland government. Landowners are reporting serious issues — intimidation, property damage, and environmental harm — yet the department insists there’s “no evidence” of wrongdoing.

I asked questions about residents’ rights to refuse access when health or safety is at risk. What happens if someone has asthma and chemical exposure could trigger an attack? What about pets, livestock, or crops at risk? The department wouldn’t give me an answer. Even more alarming, I’ve received reports of chemicals being used unlawfully — S-methoprene dumped into waterways, aerial spraying of pyriproxyfen in areas with no fire ants — all in breach of permit conditions.

And then there’s Dawson Creek in Samford Valley where locals report native species have been killed. Where’s the environmental safety research proving these chemicals are safe for people and wildlife? The department claims the program is “supported by science,” and insists it won’t suspend funding—even when breaches occur. That’s taxpayer money being spent on a program that could be putting lives, health, and ecosystems at risk.

I’m not backing down. Biosecurity matters, yet it should never come at the expense of people’s rights, health, or trust.

If you’ve had problems with the fire ant program, please reach out — I’d like to hear from you.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. What oversight is the federal government exercising to ensure the states are successful in eradicating fire ants and are doing so safely?

CHAIR: I will say that we have touched on fire ants, but please feel free.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I raised this at the last Senate estimates. I’ve got quite a few questions.

CHAIR: Carry on.

Ms Sawczuk: As we mentioned a moment ago, we continue chairing the national governance—the national management group—around the program. There is a program-level meeting and also a consultative meeting. That is happening regularly, and the next national governance meeting is on 15 December. Taking on board the concerns that you raised at the last estimates hearing and correspondence that has been provided to the department but also to the program in Queensland, we have been engaging with the program to pass on the specific feedback that has been provided. They have confirmed that they are taking on board any considerations raised by landowners, but there has been no damage to property and also no unlawful behaviour in regard to accessing properties for treatment et cetera. The safety of the program is absolutely critical. It’s something that is discussed at the national management meetings in particular, and we take quite seriously any concerns that have been raised around specific treatment types, whether it’s broadscale treatment or direct nest injection. The APVMA is the authoriser of those particular treatments and can confirm that the program has been undertaking independent toxicology analysis, which has found that there is no direct correlation with any negative impacts to animals et cetera around the fire ant treatment.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’m stunned. When you say ‘take on board’, what do you mean? What action do you take specifically to hold them accountable?

Ms Sawczuk: We directly engage at all levels.

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?

Ms Sawczuk: We meet with the program to talk about the specifics.

Senator ROBERTS: Where do you meet?

Ms Sawczuk: Virtually and face to face, and quite regularly. Every piece of correspondence that has been sent through is provided directly to the program, and then we have followed in meetings to understand the specific circumstances. While there are some claims, there is definitely no evidence that would warrant concerns about anything untoward about the behaviour of the program. I appreciate that there are some sensitivities for specific landowners et cetera, but all of the treatment, and all of the action by the program, has been within the Queensland biosecurity legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: There have been assaults on people, injuries to innocent people. There has been complete disregard for people’s health. There have been violations of the permits, which I’ll get onto. So I don’t
accept your response at all. Last time we appeared at Senate estimates on this topic, we were deluged with people saying they would contact you. Have you been contacted by residents?

Ms Saunders: We have received correspondence since our last hearing, and, as Ms Sawszuk just outlined, all that information is provided to the program, who’s ultimately accountable for delivery, compliance, assurance and oversight of the work that occurs.

Senator ROBERTS: Who is responsible?

Ms Saunders: The relevant state department in Queensland is responsible. There are ongoing discussions with them in regard to the issues that have been raised, but, ultimately, it’s the Queensland government that is
accountable for delivering the program.

Senator ROBERTS: So the state is responsible but you’re funding it to do these activities.

Ms Saunders: The nation, because it’s a national program, to which we contribute funding—correct.

Senator ROBERTS: The majority of funding.

Ms Saunders: It’s 50 per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: For eradication. You don’t seem to be aware of the overreach and intimidating tactics being undertaken by the state government, particularly in South-East Queensland, forcing their way onto
properties unlawfully, causing fear and distress to landowners, upsetting women and terrifying crying children, polluting the environment, negligently and wilfully killing fauna and pets. Are you aware of those?

Ms Saunders: I know you’re disappointed with the response that we give you, as a department, but I can only give you the same advice I gave you at the last hearing on these matters, and that is that we are not accountable or responsible for the issues you’ve raised, nor do we have evidence of them.

Senator ROBERTS: Since when is it okay for gates and fences, with your funding, to be broken down, with police threatening those with reasonable excuses who withhold consent—for strangers to force their way onto
properties and sneakily and deceptively distract people from their properties, with a view to spreading poison, when there are no fire ants on their property, not even in the valley?

Ms Saunders: I’m not sure what else I can add to our earlier evidence on this.

Senator ROBERTS: This is exactly what happened recently at Beechmont and Laidley, when property was damaged and officers behaved like criminals in a home invasion while trespassing on private land. The violence came from the officers, not the landowners. The landowners have been professional and peaceful. Why?

Ms Saunders: These are the responsibilities of the state government. I’d really encourage those allegations and concerns being directed to them. As indicated by the deputy, the legislation which they’re operating in
compliance with is entirely the responsibility of the state government.

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re funding it. I attended another property some kilometres away from the two locations I mentioned that had multiple fire ant nests—I saw them six metres apart in places and two or three
metres apart in places—that the program refused to attend and treat. Why is that?

Ms Saunders: I can’t comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like the name of the property?

Ms Saunders: Certainly, we’re happy to take any information you have. We would relay it to state government for action, noting we have no authority.

Senator ROBERTS: A property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers if they have a reasonable excuse. Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when a resident has an illness, such as asthma or other respiratory
ailment, confirmed by a medical certificate as likely to be made worse by exposure to toxic chemicals, particularly when being sprayed? Is that a reasonable excuse?

Ms Saunders: I’m not prepared to comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals represent a threat to domestic animals—dogs, cats and birds—if they’re exposed to the toxic chemicals, including chickens?

Ms Saunders: I’m not prepared to comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals that you’re funding represent a threat to poultry, livestock and fruit and vegetables growing on the property?

Ms Saunders: If you have a long list of allegations, we’re happy to take those allegations and raise the matters with the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I will do that with most of these questions. Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals are not being administered according to the safety requirements under the permits issued by
the APVMA?

Ms Saunders: I don’t have a comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Just yesterday I was told—this is so common—that the program distributed S methoprene directly into a Samford waterway, against the safety rules for application, by way of a drone. Are you aware of that?

Ms Saunders: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Aerial application of pyriproxyfen is occurring on a wide scale on areas where no fire ants have ever been identified, when the permit number PER87728 clearly states by way of restraint:
DO NOT apply as a preventative measure for Red Imported Fire Ant control. If the permit has changed, why? Are you aware of that?

Ms Saunders: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the administering authority has already admitted to disastrously polluting a significant waterway in the Samford Valley near Brisbane, Dawson Creek,
killing extensive native water, reptile and insect species? I’ve seen that. Is that a reasonable excuse?

Ms Saunders: I couldn’t comment on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Did you take photos?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Can you produce them for us?

Senator ROBERTS: The locals can.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: What about you? You said you took photos.

Senator ROBERTS: No, the party I was with took photos.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Oh, I see.

Senator ROBERTS: Where is the environmental safety research that’s been done to establish the safety of humans and our native birds and small animals when poisoned insects form part of their food chain? Have you
done that?

Ms Saunders: I’ll hand over to Dr Bertie Hennecke—he can probably comment further—but the program is absolutely supported by scientific evidence and safety. It’s been looked at nationally, with people who have
credible experience in this field, all of whom are satisfied with the arrangements that are in place and the chemicals that are being used for the purpose intended.

Senator ROBERTS: In distributing these chemicals, they’re breaching the permits—they’re breaching the authorisation—to use the chemicals. Does that bother you? You’re funding it.

Ms Saunders: If there’s evidence of that, we’re happy to take that evidence and take up the matter with the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: Will DAFF step up to pay compensation to those affected by the misapplication of the Fire Ant Eradication Program?

Ms Saunders: It wouldn’t be the responsibility of the department—

Senator ROBERTS: You’re funding it.

Ms Saunders: to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding this using taxpayer money, doing injury to the environment and to people?

Ms Saunders: It’s a national program aimed at eradicating red imported fire ants. It’s that simple. We know it’s incredibly invasive and, if it were to take hold, would have catastrophic implications for the country. That’s
why we’re doing it.

Senator ROBERTS: So why are you putting lives and the health of humans and the environment at risk?

Ms Saunders: We don’t have evidence of that.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like some?

Ms Saunders: As I’ve said several times now, I’m happy to take information you have, and we’ll take it up with the Queensland government.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you stop funding this program, or at least suspend funding of this program?

Ms Saunders: No, we won’t.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

/by

Clarifying Chemical Safety Responsibilities with APVMA

,

I inquired with the Australian and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) about the responsibility for the safety of chemicals. I was informed that the APVMA is responsible for the safety of the chemicals they issue permits for, while the States are responsible for their application and that permits are issued based on the safety data on the chemical labels.

I mentioned that there were discrepancies between the data in the safety brochures and the actual permits and was asked to bring that information to their attention.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I will just continue. What was going to be my second set of questions, I will do now because I will continue on from Senator Canavan. There is label use and there is permit use. Where are the Australian environmental impact studies for both these chemicals regarding widespread applications in South- East Queensland and northern New South Wales? Do they have to do an EIS? 

Mr Hansen: Not an EIS, but they need to meet the environmental thresholds of the statutory criteria in terms of not being harmful to the environment, and that’s an assessment that gets done by APVMA before we issue the permit. 

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s built into the permit? 

Mr Hansen: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who is responsible for that? Is it APVMA? 

Mr Hansen: It’s our responsibility to look at how they are proposing to use it, to put the restrictions on how it should be used to make sure there is no impact to the environment, and then the actual following of those instructions are the responsibility of the state jurisdictions. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’m appreciating your succinct answers. How does the program justify treating areas with no evidence of nests, and how can this be effective if the bait is only active for 24 hours after application? 

Mr Hansen: I’m sorry, that’s something for the program. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know why there are discrepancies and contradictions between the latest permit and the safety data sheets regarding safety precautions and application guidelines? I think the permit they are talking about is the permit of the helicopter. 

Mr Hansen: For the aerial applications. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Hansen: I heard that question before. I would be interested to see what the variations are—particularly the variations between label and not necessarily the safety data sheet but the label and the permit. If there were differences on that, I’d be interested to see them if you had them. 

Senator ROBERTS: How do people get hold of you? 

Mr Hansen: We’ll find a way. 

/1 Comment/by

Net Zero Hypocrisy: Nullarbor’s Fragile Ecosystem at Risk

,

Net zero is vandalising our natural environment. The latest proposal will cover two million hectares of fragile ecosystem along the Nullarbor Plain with industrial wind and solar. There was a time when environmentalists would have thrown themselves in front of the bulldozers; now they are driving the bulldozers!  Australia has had enough of this hypocrisy and obscene, dishonest devastation.

Industrial solar and wind subsidies will be redirected to fund the removal and remediation of wind, solar, and transmission lines, which is inevitable once the climate profiteers realise the jig is up and shoot through, leaving their rusting industrial waste to dump toxic chemicals into the landscape.

A One Nation government will cancel the net zero transition and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. If people in cities want solar and wind, let them have it. We would retrofit coal-fired power stations with capture and conversion devices, turning nature’s trace gas—essential to all life, carbon dioxide—into fertiliser, ethanol, and AdBlue, products that will grow Australia.

Climate carpetbaggers are ripping Australia off, and it has to stop.

Transcript

The net zero transition is not driven in accordance with science and commonsense nor is it the truth. Its ideologically driven and uses cherry-picked numbers. It cancels academics who disagree with it, enabling a parasitic and a dishonest solar and wind lobby to transfer hundreds of billion dollars from everyday Australians into the lobbyists” pockets. Meanwhile, communist China pretends it is inviting net zero while expanding coal-fired power plants, growing wealth on the back of cheap power. This is taking investment, investment and wealth from everyday Australians. Net zero will cost Australia to 2050 around $1.5 trillion, after which the parasites will continue the process of replacing short-lived weather-dependent generation. 

Net zero is vandalising our natural environment. The latest proposal will cover two million hectares of fragile ecosystem along the Nullarbor Plain with industrial wind and solar. There was a time when environmentalists would have thrown themselves in front of the bulldozers; now they are driving the bulldozers! Australia has had enough of this hypocrisy and obscene, dishonest devastation. A One Nation government will cancel the net zero transition and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. If people in cities want solar and wind, let them have it. We would retrofit coal-fired power stations with capture and conversion devices, turning nature’s trace gas—essential to all life, carbon dioxide—into fertiliser, ethanol and AdBlue, products that will grow Australia. 

Industrial solar and wind subsidies will be redirected to fund the removal and remediation of wind, solar and transmission lines, which is inevitable once the climate profiteers realise the jig is up and shoot through, leaving their broken monstrosities behind. One Nation will close down the department of climate change and the related web of agencies that funnel taxpayer money into a web of foreign corporations, parasitic Australian billionaires, compliant academia, government departments and agencies—dishonest government departments. One Nation offers Australia a clear choice: vote for the Liberal-Labor-Greens-Teals uniparty and continue our descent into poverty, or vote One Nation and restore the economic powerhouse that Australia once was.  

/4 Comments/by

Officials Shrug Off Fire Ant Concerns: Little Interest, Few Answers!

,

During this session, basic answers were provided, but little interest was shown in understanding the potential environmental catastrophe at hand. I was simply referred to the department’s submission to the fire ant inquiry. When I posed questions, Officials showed minimal interest in providing answers. They frequently redirected questions to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and appeared unaware of the gravity of the issues raised. Some of the questions were taken on notice, but I was offered little substantive information.

It was clear that they were not fully informed on their responsibilities and showed little genuine concern for environmental protection.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to ask questions about fire ant treatment in Queensland. Are you aware of the many complaints that have been made about the administration of the National Fire Ant Eradication Program in Queensland, which has already resulted in massive environmental damage in the Samford Valley near Brisbane, but it also concerns residents in Currumbin, Boonah, Gatton and other places in South-East Queensland? 

Dr Fraser : The Australian government lead for the National Fire Ant Eradication Program is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. So, while I’m aware of some of those complaints and, broadly, on stakeholder interest in this really important issue, for some of those more detailed questions you may get some more comprehensive responses from that department. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been in touch with RRAT, and I’m going to be asking questions of them tomorrow for the reasons you just mentioned, but I’d like to continue because this is an environmental matter. It’s a catastrophe in the making. Is the aerial dumping of toxic insecticide by helicopter into a creek system a breach of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999? This is exactly what has happened recently into Dawson Creek and Samford Valley, which I visited and sighted, and there’s no life in the creek. 

Dr Fraser : I’m not aware of whether that’s an issue under the EPBC Act or of the specifics of that. What I would say is that the treatments that are used in the fire ant eradication program are specifically targeted to those ants, and they’re approved by the APVMA, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, who conduct a very rigorous scientific assessment prior to those approvals. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve seen what they’ve done in Dawson Creek and Samford Valley. It’s wiped it out. There’s nothing moving in the creek, nothing at all—no life. We’ve had similar complaints in other areas. Are you aware that independent water testing of the creek showed massive toxic pollution of the local waterways, not due to previous pollutants or other pollutants? 

Dr Fraser : Again, I’m not familiar with the details of these issues. They’ll be best handled by the agriculture department. 

Senator ROBERTS: Will this government halt the funding of the dangerous spraying of chemicals into our waterways until at least an independent environmental risk assessment is completed? I guess that’s a question for the minister. 

Senator McCarthy: I’ll certainly take on notice your concerns in regard to Dawson Creek. What I can say is our government would never want to pollute any particular area with any ill will. I think— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no doubt of that at all. 

Senator McCarthy: So I just want to go back to the assertion in your question. 

Senator ROBERTS: There is no assertion whatsoever. 

Senator McCarthy: Okay, thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS: All I want to know is will you stop the funding that’s polluting Dawson Creek and other areas until an independent environmental risk assessment is completed? 

Senator McCarthy: I can take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: According to residents, there are serious conflicts of interest with the previous Queensland government. Dr Fraser, why was the program allowed to distribute huge quantities of poison into pristine environment with no environmental risk assessment completed beforehand, and why is it funded? 

Dr Fraser : To take your last question first, the program has been funded because red imported fire ants are one of the world’s worst invasive ant species. If this species remains unchecked in the South-East Queensland area and beyond, it could cover up to 97 per cent of Australia. It would wipe out huge numbers of birds, mammals and other species and cause enormous destruction to agricultural industry throughout Australia, human health and infrastructure. It is possibly one of the worst invasive species Australia has experienced, and the overseas experience is those catastrophic impacts I just spoke about. Hence, the commitment of the Australian government and the increased funding commitment by the Australian government to deal with this pest. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice and provide us with the evidence backing up what you just said, please? We’ve got very concerned residents in my home state, and they have talked to people overseas, including people in Texas—fire ants are now quite common across the United States—and there’s very little damage at all. So if you could just take it on notice to provide me with the evidence to back up your claim. 

Dr Fraser : I don’t need to take that on notice. We have provided information on that, including scientific references in our department’s submission to the red imported fire ant inquiry, and we also appeared as witnesses at that inquiry as well. So that information is on the public record as part of our submission, but it is much more broadly on the public record and documented in the scientific literature, including for the United States. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware of the damage to the environment that’s already occurred through the mismanagement of this program in Queensland? 

Dr Fraser : No, I’m not. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that 21 years ago there was one fire ant nest at the port of Brisbane and now they are in Northern New South Wales and all over South-East Queensland? 

Dr Fraser : I’m not familiar with that. 

Senator ROBERTS: The program is failing. 

Dr Fraser : The program has been hugely successful in limiting the spread of red imported fire ants from the South-East Queensland region. The rate of spread in Australia is miniscule compared to the rate of spread in countries like China and the US, where this species is wreaking havoc. 

Senator ROBERTS: How does spraying toxic chemicals in valleys with no fire ant nests helping to stop the spread of fire ants? 

Dr Fraser : I’m not aware of those detailed accusations. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the dead wildlife—including native ants and whole hives of bees—illness to pets and the massive loss of the marine life yabbies in the creek that have already occurred since baiting commenced? 

Dr Fraser : No, I’m not. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the threats to human health posed by these chemicals used to treat land? 

Dr Fraser : No, I’m not, but I am aware of the threats posed to human health posed by red imported fire ants. 

Senator ROBERTS: People have water tanks—they’re not on the reticulated water system—that use their roof. They’ve got toxins on their roof. Spraying over houses with humans in them. This is what’s going on. 

Dr Fraser : Again, I’m not familiar with these issues, and I would also not claim that toxic chemicals do not have impacts beyond the target species; however, it’s a risk management approach that is taken in dealing with these invasive species. 

Senator ROBERTS: Does the risk management include sloppy and indiscriminate helicopter usage? 

Dr Fraser : You’re aware that I won’t know the answer to that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that S-methoprene is not approved for use in the UK, because of high-risk environmental concerns? 

Dr Fraser : I’m not, but, as I’ve stated, I’m not an expert in these matters. 

Senator ROBERTS: What compensation will be made for the damage already caused by this ill-considered program. 

Dr Fraser : I don’t know. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister? 

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Why are properties in Queensland and many valleys still being poisoned when it has been established that there are no fire ants present? 

Mr Knudson : A number of your questions go to the implementation of this program, which, as Dr Fraser has laid out, is a program of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We’re just not positioned to give you informed answers on those questions. 

Senator ROBERTS: This has become an environmental issue, with all due respect, Mr Knudson. That’s why I’m asking questions here as well as Agriculture. 

Mr Knudson : What Dr Fraser has laid out is, ‘Here’s the environmental risk et cetera,’ but the specifics on the implementation of the program are a matter for the department of agriculture. I’m just trying to say I think your energy and effort would be best focused on the department of agriculture. 

Senator ROBERTS: I have plenty of energy—tonnes of energy! 

Mr Knudson : I have seen that many times. 

Senator ROBERTS: What we’ll be doing is going into Agriculture and holding them accountable as well, but this is an environmental catastrophe—a human catastrophe. 

Mr Knudson : That’s what Dr Fraser has laid out that. We’re not saying that there are no impacts from the program; what we are saying is that it’s a really significant environmental issue that we’re trying to contain. What Dr Fraser has laid out is that there is significant evidence that the program has been effective in containing the growth and spread of red fire ants. 

Senator ROBERTS: Residents in Queensland would disagree. Let me ask my last two questions. Given that the eradication of fire ants has failed over the last 30 years in Australia and we have spent almost a billion dollars, is it time to stop this program and try to find another, environmentally safe and responsible management solution? 

Dr Fraser : The program hasn’t failed. The program has been successful in curtailing the spread of red imported fire ants by any measure, including against overseas measures. 

Senator ROBERTS: Which department appropriates the money to Queensland, and what monitoring and audit measures are there? 

Dr Fraser : There are extensive monitoring and auditing measures. As for which department appropriates the money to Queensland, that would be a question for the department of agriculture. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not your department? 

Dr Fraser : No, it’s not. 

/3 Comments/by

Study Reveals Carbon Credits are a Scam!

,

A reputable study says that 70-80% of carbon credits “are devoid of integrity”. This is a market that is costing Australia roughly $5.5 billion based on carbon credit units that even the Greens agree is a scam. This is driving up prices even higher in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

It’s time to stop the corruption and cancel these ridiculous net-zero policies.

Transcript

Carbon dioxide credits are a scam and an absolute fraud, and the Greens agree with One Nation on this. Yes, you heard that correctly. It’s difficult to believe. Australians may wonder what we agree on Granted, the Greens and One Nation have come to the same conclusion for very different reasons. Nonetheless, we share the conclusion that carbon dioxide credits are a scam. They are rife with opportunities for fraud. 

The Clean Energy Regulator has issued 140 million carbon dioxide credits. At the current spot price of $35 each, this represents a racket potentially worth $4.9 billion. That’s expected to grow by 20 million credits, or $700 million, this year alone, making it $5.6 million. 

The Greens and One Nation aren’t the only ones to criticise Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs. In 2022 Professor Andrew Macintosh, environmental law expert at the Australian National University, and his colleagues published a series of papers absolutely tearing apart the ACCU system. Keep in mind that this is a $5.5 billion market that’s being fabricated, in part to give the UN income, ultimately. As usual, they enlist parasites who benefit while pushing UN policy for them. For example, the major banks. Rothschild Australia, the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch had on their advisory boards in this country at the time the CSIRO chief executive, Dr Megan Clark—a conflict of interest? 

Back to the study of ACCU carbon dioxide credits. The study was done under Professor Andrew Macintosh, who said: 

The available data suggests 70 to 80 per cent of the ACCUs issued to … projects are devoid of integrity … 

So 20 to 30 per cent may have some integrity. Remember, this is a $5.5 billion market. Here’s another quote: 

What is occurring is a fraud on the environment … 

‘A fraud on the environment’, I say to the Greens. This is what Dr Macintosh said: 

What is occurring is a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers— 

Australian taxpayers— 

and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs … 

In response to these revelations, the government commissioned what they call the Chubb review. The government should just have been honest and called it what it really was: a whitewash, a distortion and misinformation. Actually, the Chubb review is disinformation. In the past, when Professor Chubb has been requested to provide empirical scientific data within a logical scientific point backing up claims of climate change due to human carbon dioxide, he has repeatedly failed to produce it. He has never produced it, yet he’s often advocated for it. He’s part of the climate fraud industry and has received a lot of money to push climate fraud. He has been heavily rewarded by both Liberal-National and Labor Party governments. The Chubb review, in this case, addressed nothing of substance and provided no evidence for its claims that problems have been fixed, yet the government held the report up as proof that everything’s fine. As Professor Macintosh and his colleagues outlined in their response to the Chubb review, it spent less than six pages discussing the ACCU rules, which relate to a $5.5 billion market. They say: 

The– 

Chubb— 

report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions … 

I’ll say that again: 

The– 

Chubb— 

report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions, and includes very little analysis to support its findings. And importantly, the panel does not address key questions around the integrity of the scheme’s rules. 

What use was that? This is ‘a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs’. Here is another quote: 

Bewilderingly— 

I don’t find it bewildering; it’s straightforward, as I’ve been watching this scam unfold for years– 

in its assessment of the methods, the panel does not refer to the findings of a review it commissioned from the Australian Academy of Science … The academy … found numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes. 

There were ‘numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes’. This is so typical of this government. It is so typical of the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor, pushing the climate fraud. Here is another quote: 

The— 

Chubb— 

review … acknowledged the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credit scheme, but says “it was also provided with evidence to the contrary”. Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists. 

Maybe the dog ate the evidence for breakfast. This is what the government says is assurance and integrity for taxpayer money. 

While the Greens, Professor Macintosh and I may agree on the integrity issues with carbon dioxide credits, here’s where I leave them behind: there is no reason to reduce our output of carbon dioxide or trade credits for it. Carbon dioxide credits can never have integrity because they are a scam designed to transfer wealth from the pockets of everyday Australians and their families and small businesses to the bank accounts of billionaire net zero scam artists and parasitic multinationals sucking on the financial payout from climate fraud and associated financial scams. I note some of these points. I won’t go into them in detail. The government that introduced the renewable energy target, a scam, and the national electricity market that is really a national electricity racket—it’s not a market; it’s a bureaucratic controlled entity—stole farmers’ property rights across the country so that they could comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. They put in place the first policy—not legislation—advocating for a carbon dioxide tax. It wasn’t Julia Gillard. It was the Howard government that did all these things. The Howard government laid the foundation for all of this. It went around the Constitution to steal farmers’ property rights around the country. Then, six years after being booted from office and after the Liberals and Nationals in the Howard government told us that it was all based on science, John Howard, in a major lecture to sceptic think tank in Londan said that on the topic of climate science, he was agnostic. He didn’t have the science, and now our electricity sector has been crippled because of the renewable energy target, the national electricity market and an alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies. 

There has never been—there never is—any empirical scientific data and logical scientific points that human carbon dioxide is warming the planet. There is not any from the CSIRO—I’ve done freedom of information requests and held them accountable in the Senate—nor from their publications ever. There is not any from the Bureau of Meteorology. It’s the same deal. There is not any from the United Nations. It’s the same deal. There is also no policy basis. There is no documented effect per unit of human carbon dioxide on climate factors such as air temperature, rainfall, heat waves, drought severity and frequency or storm severity, frequency and duration—none at all. There is no basis for the policy on which the carbon dioxide credits are based. There’s been no cost benefit analysis. There’s been no business case. Ross Garnaut, who produced a report for the Rudd-Gillard government, said in his report on the science that there basically was no science and he was going on the consensus. Yet he is parasitically sucking on solar and wind subsidies, driving up electricity prices and putting Australians into poverty. Remember, the money that goes to the extra costs of electricity in this country is a highly regressive tax on the poor in our country. 

In 2009 and 2020 we had two global experiments showing that human carbon dioxide has no effect on carbon dioxide levels in the air. We had a major downturn with the global financial crisis in 2008. We then had a recession in 2009. COVID hit us. It arrived on our shores—it didn’t really hit us; the government hit us—in 2020, and then 2020 was almost a depression because of the restrictions and lockdowns. In both years, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued rising unabated. Yet we’ve been told for decades now that by cutting back on human production of carbon dioxide we would see the levels in the atmosphere start decreasing and go down. We had a major reduction in industrial activity and a severe recession in 2009 and 2020. The production of carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbons, coal, oil and natural gas decreased dramatically, yet nothing happened. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere kept increasing. 

I asked the CSIRO why. They said that there is an inflection. I asked them for the details of that inflection, to characterise it statistically. They failed to do it. I asked the Bureau of Meteorology, and they said, ‘Senator Roberts, it would take years for that to come through.’ Here is the CSIRO saying that we’ve already seen it and the Bureau of Meteorology saying that we will see it eventually, but it will take a long while to come. You can’t make this stuff up! What the experiments in 2009 and 2020 showed is that the production of carbon dioxide from human activity will not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Once you understand Henry’s law—the quantities of carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean are 50 to 70 times more than the entire atmospheric carbon dioxide—then you start to understand why that’s the case. But not content with climate science fraud, the CSIRO is perpetrating gen cost, which is energy fraud based on bogus assumptions that have been completely debunked. Aidan Morrison has done a marvellous job; others have done a marvellous job. 

There’s no basis for this scam, this fraud, but let’s return to the fraud. A report in the 2010s said Europol found 95 per cent of carbon dioxide trading credits were suspicious. That’s easy to believe because there’s no physical basis to the measurement of reductions to carbon dioxide produced. They’re all projections. They’re all based on guesses. They’re formulae based on estimations. They were never quantified and are still not quantified. China is producing record quantities of carbon dioxide, and so are Russia, Brazil, the United States and the European Union—Australia are a small player—yet temperatures are flat and have been flat since 1995. That’s almost 30 years of flat temperatures. I urge senators to establish this inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of how taxpayer money is being fraudulently abused. 

/3 Comments/by