Posts

Where is Our Dam?

,

The people of Central Queensland deserve clear answers, not continuous delays, when it comes to the Paradise Dam new wall project. The last public update on foundation geological mapping was in late 2024 and it’s time to find out what actual progress has been made.

Mr Darrough from the National Water Gridadmitted that the detailed business case was finalised in July 2025 and evaluated by Infrastructure Australia in September 2025. And here we are in 2026 and still a formal proposal for the revised dam wall hasn’t been submitted.

The estimated cost has skyrocketed to a staggering $4.4 billion because they realised the old wall couldn’t be reinstated, and they would have to build a new one downstream.

The federal government has committed $600 million (with $50 million already spent on early works), and the rest is just sitting in the budget.

The federal department is just sitting on its hands waiting on the Queensland state government to get its act together and put forward a formal funding proposal.

Meanwhile, Queenslanders wait for water security.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing again today. I have some brief questions about water infrastructure. I’m told this needs to be asked here. Is anyone familiar with Paradise Dam?

Senator Watt: Oh yes!

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about the new dam wall for Paradise Dam. The last update we can find on this project is the conduct of foundation geological mapping conducted by Sunwater in November 2024. Has anything progressed beyond that and, if so, what?

Senator Watt: While the officials are getting ready, I’ll say that this is a Queensland government project. There will be a limit to the role that this department has in that project, but obviously the officials can share whatever they have.

Mr Darrough: The detailed business case was finalised in July 2025 and is being considered by the Queensland government. The Queensland government hasn’t submitted a proposal for the new project with the revised dam wall arrangements. Infrastructure Australia published its evaluation of the detailed business case in September 2025.

Senator ROBERTS: Who’s funding the new dam wall and in what proportions?

Mr Darrough: The Australian government made a commitment of $600 million; $50 million of that is contracted with Queensland to deliver early enabling works and the detailed business case, and the balance of the funding remains available in the budget.

Senator ROBERTS: What do you expect the total cost to be? How much will the Queensland government pay?

Mr Darrough: I think it’s on the record that it’s an estimated $4.4 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: So the vast majority will come from the Queensland government?

Mr Darrough: The Queensland government hasn’t put forward a proposal to the Australian government for funding.

Senator Watt: In case you’re unaware, Senator, the commitment that our government made of $600 million was 50 per cent of the funding for—was it going to be a new dam originally?

Mr Darrough: It was originally to reinstate the old dam wall, but, when the early work was done on that, Sunwater realised that it couldn’t be restored and that they needed to do a new dam wall downstream, so the price has been revisited. That’s also some time ago, so the estimates have gone up through escalation factors in any case.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re waiting on the Queensland government to get the total cost?

Mr Darrough: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any formula for funding of that from federal compared to state?

Mr Darrough: No. The National Water Grid Infrastructure Investment Framework puts in place arrangements whereby states and territories can ask for up to 50 per cent of funding for capital and construction projects, but there is no formulaic base. The level of contribution that the Australian government would make is a matter that’s decided by the government, and it’s informed by the business case evaluation from Infrastructure Australia, the proposal from Queensland and advice from the department.

Senator ROBERTS: So, in summary, you’re waiting on the Queensland government.

Mr Darrough: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to Urannah Dam. It was cancelled by the Albanese Labor government in 2022, I understand. We have the preliminary business case, which was released. I don’t have the final business case and environmental impact study, which I’m assuming showed why the project was not feasible. Were these completed?

Mr Darrough: On Urannah Dam, the then Australian government committed $22.65 million to support the business case, environmental approvals and geotech. On 16 December 2022, the delivery agent, Bowen River Utilities, announced it had withdrawn the scheme from environmental assessment processes in Queensland.

Senator ROBERTS: Was any reason given?

Mr Darrough: I’d need to take that on notice. The funding that was actually in the budget for construction of Urannah Dam was within the infrastructure portfolio, not the water elements that transferred to DCCEEW.

Senator ROBERTS: In whose hands is the final business case?

Mr Darrough: I’ll need to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: And also the environmental impact study?

Mr Darrough: Again, I’ll take that on notice. We encourage jurisdictions to publish business cases that the Australian government contributes to, but, ultimately, the Commonwealth-state relations and the funding arrangement that we have puts ownership of those documents in the hands of the jurisdiction. It’s ultimately a matter for them to decide whether or not they publish.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the state?

Mr Darrough: Yes, but we encourage in all cases that it be published.

Senator ROBERTS: If you have access to it, may we have a copy, please?

Mr Darrough: I’ll need to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s fine. If the business case says there’s not enough use for the water, then are you aware that there’s a Project Iron Boomerang or, actually, Capricorn Steel, which is a large project—I won’t go into the details—that would involve putting a steel mill at Collinsville?

Mr Darrough: I can talk more broadly about the Burdekin Basin, of which the Urannah area is part. The Commonwealth is partnering with Queensland on the Burdekin Regional Water Assessment, and that process is under way, looking at a basin-wide assessment of demand and supply for water in the catchment.

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to know this, but I’ll ask it anyway. Are you aware of the potential for a steel mill at Collinsville and other steel mills in Central Queensland? Mr Darrough: Only from newspapers.

/0 Comments/by

Why QLD Projects Are Going Nowhere

,

I wanted a clear update on major projects vital to Queenslanders. As usual, we are seeing a lot of bureaucratic foot-dragging.

First up, I called out the very slow pace on the M1. The Infrastructure Priority List shows we are still stuck at Stage 2 and 3 of the framework, waiting on the Queensland State Government to get its act together on a business case. While a tiny 10-kilometre section was upgraded, the M1 is 80 kilometres long. When I pushed for a timeline on the rest of the highway, the department couldn’t give me a straight answer on the spot and took it on notice.

It was a similar story with the Centenary Highway. Whilst the new bridge in western Brisbane is welcome, the highway is 42 kilometres long. I asked the exact same question: when will the rest of the widening actually happen? The department’s answer? We’re still in the “business case stage.”

We then discussed the Paradise Dam. We support rebuilding the dam wall, however the numbers must make sense. When I asked about the timeline and cooperation from the Crisafulli Government, the department shirked responsibility and passed the buck, claiming it falls under the Department of Climate Change (DCCEEW), not land transport.

The Queensland Inland Freight Route (Mungindi to Charters Towers) is a brilliant project that One Nation has been pushing for a long time. It links vital regional networks from Roma to Longreach and up to Townsville. I wanted to know why it has stalled and when the Minister will use some real leadership to get it moving. The department clarified it’s a road upgrade, not rail, and provided an update on early works, including pavement widening and bridge upgrades on the Carnarvon Highway and Gregory Developmental Road. It’s a massive multi-year project, and it needs to be finished.

Lastly, I wanted to know why the Port of Gladstone land and sea access upgrade has been stuck as an “identified problem” since 2015 with zero progress. I asked if they were considering the major I-PG Global container facility proposal, however the officials could not answer, instead directing me to Infrastructure Australia who handles those assessments.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Canavan. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like an update on the infrastructure plan for the country. My first question is this. Referencing the infrastructure priority list dated 6 February 2026 on the Brisbane to Gold Coast highway it says the next step is: Proponent to develop potential investment options (Stage 2 of Infrastructure Australia’s Assessment Framework), and complete business case development (Stage 3 of the Framework). The proponent is the Queensland state government; is that correct?

Mr Bourne: Yes.

Ms Hall: If that’s what’s on the infrastructure priority list, yes, that would be correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I note that a 10-kilometre section of the highway was upgraded, yet the M1 is 80 kilometres long. When will we see progress on upgrading the rest of the M1?

Ms Hall: We can take you through what programs we have on the M1 currently, but any additional requests for funding would have to come from the Queensland government.

Mr Bourne: Would you like us to go through our projects along the M1?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. Or could you put it on notice, maybe? I’ve got a few other questions. Are they all short answers?

Mr Bourne: There’s quite a bit to them. We can take that on notice if that’s how you’d prefer to do it.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The centenary highway is the next project. The new bridge is welcome, so thank you for that. People in western Brisbane appreciate it. However, the centenary highway is 42 kilometres long, and, on the plans to widen the motorway, let’s talk about what to do next. It’s the same question. When will we see the rest of the widening occur on the centenary highway?

Mr Bourne: Currently, we have a project called the Centenary Motorway upgrade, and that is a business case that is currently underway. That will be subject to the outcomes of that business case.

Senator ROBERTS: So we’re at the business case stage?

Mr Bourne: Yes, if we’re referring to the Centenary Motorway upgrade.

Senator ROBERTS: The next one is Paradise Dam. We don’t disagree with the decision taken to rebuild the wall—let me make that clear. My question, though, is straightforward. Construction on the replacement dam wall was listed at a cost of $4.1 billion. However, the project is still awaiting a business case. What stage is this project at? When is construction likely to start? And what is the level of cooperation from the Crisafulli government to start the rebuild?

Mr Betts: That would be a matter for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

Senator ROBERTS: The department of climate change?

Mr Betts: Yes, DCCEEW.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s under their purview, not yours?

Mr Betts: Correct. We are responsible for land transport infrastructure.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re excited about this next one. The Queensland inland freight route capacity and safety proposal is to bring Inland Rail over the border at Mungindi and then take it due north to Charters Towers. This would link in with the Brisbane line and the Toowoomba airport from Roma, the existing line to Longreach, the Port of Gladstone with a small missing link across to the Gladstone heavy rail network and to Mount Isa and Townsville along the existing MITEZ route. This is the right alignment for Inland Rail. At last, we’re seeing progress. This proposal appears to have stalled, though, waiting on the Crisafulli government to do something. At what point, Minister, do you use your power to just get these brilliant infrastructure projects moving? We’re delighted to hear of these projects.

Senator Chisholm: Can the department provide any update on where that is at?

Mr Bourne: Senator, if you’re referring to the inland freight route upgrade—because I think you also mentioned the Inland Rail as well—

Senator ROBERTS: The inland freight route capacity and safety—going from Mungindi to Charters Towers.

Mr Bourne: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: We love the idea! It’s something we’ve been pushing for a while.

Ms Hall: That’s a road upgrade, not a rail upgrade. We can take you through the inland freight route upgrade.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.

Mr Brummitt: There’s an early works package that’s continuing at the Carnarvon Highway between Injune and Rolleston, the Dawson River Bridge and Gregory Developmental Road, and pavement strengthening and widening of various sections as well. Then, also on the Carnarvon Highway, the Baffle Creek bridge upgrade is proceeding, and the Gregory Developmental Road pavement strengthening and widening in a number of sections there is under construction, as well as a number of major culvert upgrades. The inland freight route is obviously a very large multi-year project.

/0 Comments/by

The Broken Promise of Inland Rail

,

In this session with the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC), I asked questions on the Border-to-Gowrie section of the Inland Rail, a project that continues to look like a horrendous waste of taxpayers’ money.

I asked how much hard-earned taxpayer money has been spent on this 217-kilometre stretch to date and what it will cost before construction even starts. This question was taken on notice. Estimates have been submitted to the federal government, yet the actual cost of building 37 bridges and 3,000 culverts remains up in the air.

We were originally promised a “port-to-port” network from Melbourne to Brisbane. Now, the ARTC admits the actual scope only goes from Beveridge to Kagaru. They’re admitting they cannot get double-stacked, 1.8-kilometre trains into the Brisbane port — and never will. Moving the intermodal terminal to Ebenezer is a flat-out confession of that failure.

They’re stubbornly sticking to a route that goes over a mountain and straight across the Condamine flood plain, which is an engineering nightmare that we’ve warned them about for years. They’re even talking about a “vast new rail tunnel” down the range before they’ve even sorted the basic costs or engineering reality.

I put it to them directly: every single cent being spent on this Queensland route is completely wasted. If you can’t get double-stacked freight to the port, the entire business case goes completely out the window.

While I know the ARTC is just “following orders,” I urge the government to stop throwing good money after bad.

Although they need to finish costing that range tunnel, they must immediately halt the rest and look at alternative routes, such as taking the alignment to the Port of Gladstone, which would actually deliver real logistical and economic benefits for the entire nation.

Once again – this was taken “on notice.”

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight, and have a good evening. My questions are on Inland Rail from the Queensland border to Gowrie specifically. This stage is at phase 4 approval. For 2026, ARTC anticipates increased activity, with teams conducting more site investigations, surveys and updates as they work towards securing final environmental approvals. How much money has been spent on the border-to-Gowrie section to date, and how much is expected to be spent before the first construction begins?

Mr Zambelli: I’d have to take that historical data on notice. At the moment we do have a design team engaged—that’s working on that border-to-Gowrie section to get the next refinement of the design—and we’re out there doing site investigations. I’d have to take on notice the total amount that we’ve spent over many years.

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that—and also the cost of the design.

Mr Zambelli: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: It appears you’re persevering with a route over a mountain and across the Condamine flood plain, which we’ve talked about many times, to get down to the Brisbane rail network, which will never be able to handle 1.8-kilometre trains or double-stacked trains—never. Why are you persevering with a route that will never get you to port, instead of taking the Inland Rail alignment to the port of Gladstone? There are many logistical benefits for the whole nation.

Mr Zambelli: The scope of Inland Rail is to go to Kagaru, not to Brisbane port, with double-stacked trains to Ebenezer and single-stacked trains to Kagaru. That is the scope. Inland Rail does not go to Brisbane port.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that, but we were originally told it was port to port—Melbourne to Brisbane. That’s what we were originally told was the vision for Inland Rail. It’s not going to do it. It can go to the port of Gladstone.

Mr Zambelli: I’m just telling you the scope, Senator. Inland Rail is Beveridge to Kagaru.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. You’ve got to follow orders. The border-to-Gowrie section is 217 kilometres of mostly new track, 37 bridges and 3,000 culverts. How much will this cost?

Mr Zambelli: The cost of that section is still being determined. We’ve provided some scope and design, schedule and cost estimates to the federal government, and that’s a matter for the federal government and their assurance verification specialist that’s working with them.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s horrendous. There’s Gowrie to Helidon, including a ‘vast new rail tunnel’—they’re Inland Rail’s words. Surely, taking Inland Rail to Toowoomba shouldn’t be considered until you sort the cost and engineering for taking it down the range. I put it to you that every cent you’re spending on the Queensland route is completely wasted. If you can’t get double-stacked freight to Brisbane, the whole business case is out the window, and your recent update about moving the intermodal from Kagaru to Ebenezer acknowledges you can’t get double-stacked trains to Brisbane itself, which you’ve admitted. Would you please continue work on costing the tunnel down the range but otherwise spend your time, Minister, revisiting alternative routes for Inland Rail? There are so many other fine options that will benefit the country.

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister.

/0 Comments/by

One Nation’s Gas Policy: Securing the Wealth of the Nation

,

One Nation aims to increase domestic oil and gas exploration and production by partnering with the industry rather than restricting it. Our goal is to secure greater financial returns for Australians, lower energy prices, and reduce government debt through direct state investment rather than new taxes or forced reservations.

By financially backing exploration and taking an equity share, our aim is to boost fuel security and give Australians “real ownership” of their natural resources.

Transcript

Well, it’s a real honour to be with you today and especially to introduce my gas policy to you. I think it’s very important. I hope that you see in my policy, I have a vision for this country and I think it reflects in my gas policy, so let me share it with you.

Thank you to the Australian energy producers for having me at your 2026 conference. Today I will be announcing One Nation’s new oil and gas policy. This is a bold long-term vision that will give the Australian people vastly greater returns from their resources and align government objectives with our world-class gas industry.

Australia’s gas reserves are nothing short of a miracle. For a country with only 0.3% of the world’s population, we supply nearly 10% of the world’s exported gas. One Nation has always fought for a fair return for the Australian people on our country’s natural resources.

Australians are rightly unhappy. Despite our enormous resource wealth, ordinary families are not seeing the benefits in affordable energy, reduced debt or improved services. Public unrest is building because successive governments have failed to secure a fair share while pursuing policies that risk killing the industry that generates that wealth.

One Nation understands that gas doesn’t magically extract itself. Gas production is only possible with the expertise of the private industry. One Nation will work with industry as a partner, leveraging this expertise to get the most out of our incredible resources.

We want more gas, more oil and more energy to drive our economy forward, pay down our debts and secure our energy future. Before I go on to our policy, I would like to take a moment to address the other policies that have been put forward. Senator David Percock and the Greens Party, along with lobby groups like the Australian Institute, continue to call for an industry-destroying 25% tax on gas exports.

The tax would apply to the total value of all gas exports and destroy the economics of the entire industry. That is their goal. They have drawn false equivalency with countries like Norway, who share the full risks and rewards with their industry.

A model that has succeeded because government and industry partner together, supported by generous tax incentives. These activists simply want to destroy our gas industry and push their Green Agenda scam. It’s nothing more than economic vandalism.

They don’t live in reality. They live in a ridiculous net-zero fantasy world, where fertilisers, plastics, medicines and rubber can be made with the intermittent power from solar panels. Where the 1,500 degree furnaces for smelting can be run on wind turbines.

They want gas stopped. One Nation wants more gas extracted, bigger returns and real energy security. One Nation has previously considered an East Coast gas reservation policy.

However, through consultation with industry and stakeholders, it became clear that it fell short of our policy objectives. The government’s 20 per cent reservation policy will damage onshore development of oil and gas projects. Many of these projects are Australian producers currently supplying the domestic market.

It forces inefficient use of our precious resources under the oversupply model. We will not destroy the industry with forced oversupply. Our policy will instead be flexible to export surplus gas when domestic demand is satisfied, building sovereign wealth rather than undermining domestic supply projects.

Typical of this government, they have thrust these changes onto existing projects with little to no consultation, damaging their ongoing feasibility. This policy is a blunt tool that will result in less competition and less efficient industry. One Nation’s policy will drive more exploration, more development and more production, without pushing out smaller Australian producers.

One Nation is proposing a genuine partnership with the gas industry from exploration through to production and decommissioning. We will provide a 30 per cent rebate on genuine oil and gas exploration in Commonwealth waters. In exchange, the Commonwealth may take up to 30 per cent equity in issued production licences.

The Commonwealth would be responsible for its costs as an equity owner and in turn be entitled to a proportionate share of the production. These costs will include participation in decommissioning, ensuring responsible end of life management is planned from the outset to protect the environment and taxpayers. These ownership rights would be 100 per cent owned by a new Commonwealth special investment vehicle, the Australian National Wealth Investment Corporation or called ANWIC.

ANWIC will direct its share of oil and gas to Australia’s greatest benefit, selling to critical domestic industries like fertiliser production, energy and fuel refining or exporting when the domestic market is well supplied to pay down debt and build sovereign wealth. This flexibility will maximise value for Australians while encouraging industry participation. One Nation would ensure the ANWIC board consists of only industry experts who have had success in the oil and gas industry, not government appointed bureaucrats.

Any profits made on Australia’s equity ownership will be put into a sovereign wealth fund to reinvest and grow, not to be rorted by future governments. Importantly, ANWIC would only act as a non-operating equity partner. We recognise that the expertise rests in our world-class industry and we are there to benefit from their knowledge.

ANWIC would also be empowered to invest in current producing projects. And before the Greens get excited, this won’t be some socialist takeover. It must pay its way into any existing project under commercial arms length terms, not under compulsion or coercion.

This will be a direct financial investment, not a takeover. The equity model gives flexibility to support domestic manufacturing or capture high export prices. It also provides the predictability foreign investors need.

Japan and South Korea are looking elsewhere because of policy instability in Australia. We must look after our trading partners. South Korea takes our LNG and supplies us with essential liquid petroleum products.

Stable partnership policy will keep these vital relationships strong instead of driving capital away. Under One Nation’s policy, the government will have skin in the game as a true partner to industry, maximising returns to the Australian people. This bold new strategy will be supported by One Nation’s long-standing policies of cutting red, green, black and blue tape and dumping net zero targets.

When I consulted gas producers on this policy, they were shocked to be asked their views. One Nation has done more consultation with industry than this government has ever done. The gas industry has been fighting an uphill battle against net zero-obsessed governments.

To all the representatives here, you will not be spared by trying to satisfy the net zero zealots. If you accept any form of net zero or emissions reduction policy, you are signing your industry’s death warrant. They will not stop until oil and gas in Australia is gone.

One Nation will dump all net zero policies. We will abolish the safeguard mechanism that fines gas companies for doing their job. It is actively destroying investment.

It sets rigid emission baselines and imposes heavy penalties, often millions per facility for breaches, even if our gas supports energy, security or vital industry. Companies divert enormous sums to compliance and offsets instead of production and jobs. Constant rule changes create uncertainty, leading to project delays and cancellations and telling investors Australia is not open for business.

At the same time, insane environmental approval processes driven by activist litigation and aligned with UN net zero ideology are compounding the damage. Capital is fleeing to the places that are rolling out of the red carpet, taking jobs and money away from Australians. Red, green, black and blue tape must be cut.

Approvals will be decided within six months with certainty. Fixatious legal claims will not stop vital projects. One Nation is taking the industry in a fundamentally different direction, clearing the way for Australian industry and thinking in generations, not election cycles.

We want more gas unlocked and government as a genuine partner, not an adversary to the industry. Lastly, the petroleum resource rent tax has been a failure in the gas industry. PWRT for offshore gas is not consistent or fit for purpose.

It was designed for oil projects and its structure does not suit gas economics. This has led to unstable tax revenues and eroded community trust. One Nation would replace the PWRT with a simple Commonwealth royalty on wellhead value.

This will give the Australian people a consistent tax take, help preserve the industry’s social licence and provide industry with predictable costs based on production. This change will only apply to prospective projects, grandfathering current PWRT arrangements under which billions were invested. Our policy aims for returns through participation, not ever increasing taxation.

This policy is a massive shift in how Australia gets returns from its resources. Australians will have real ownership of their resource assets for the first time and they will get first use. One Nation will be a partner of industry on behalf of the people of Australia to ensure we have fuel security, cheaper power and pay down our debts while providing the predictability our trading partners need to continue their mutual beneficial relationship with Australia.

/by

A Masterclass in Buck-Passing

,

This is my Senate Estimate session in December with the CEO of Snowy 2.0 and Minister Watt, where we witnessed a masterclass in buck-passing and dodging, when asked about the future of the Tomago aluminium smelter.

Tomago employs thousands of people both directly and indirectly. It relies on cheap coal power from the Eraring Power Station to reduce its production costs to compete with cheap Chinese aluminium.

With Eraring scheduled to close in 2028, Tomago has advised that the renewable power currently available for order is substantially more expensive, making the plant not economically viable.

The Albanese Government has held several press conferences in the Hunter region in the last few months, assuring locals that the government “has their backs” and that the power will come from firmed renewables from Snowy Hydro. Specifically, this extra power is intended to come from Snowy 2.0 upon its completion and from the new gas plant in Kurri Kurri. However, this solution will not work.

Tomago uses 8,400 GWh of power annually. Snowy Hydro will contribute 375 GWh, and the new Kurri Kurri gas plant 2,500 GWh, bringing Snowy Hydro’s total generation to 5,800 GWh. Even if all existing customers sourced their power elsewhere and Snowy sold Tomago every watt of power they had, it would still fall short of the required amount needed. Given that Eraring generates 14,000 GWh, the solution is obvious: Eraring must remain open.

When questioned on this, Snowy Hydro CEO Mr. Barnes did his best not to upset Minister Watt by deferring to the Department. The Department advised that these discussions “sensitive” and declined to provide further information.

Most alarming was the admission that Snowy 2.0 isn’t an energy provider, it’s more of an “insurance company,” designed to run only 10% of the time, with their power being used to backup the grid in case of an emergency.

If Snowy Hydro sold its entire power to keep Tomago operational, the grid will not have that emergency source of power, inevitably resulting in blackouts. This highlights the lie that Snowy Hydro can “save” Tomago.

The government claims to care about jobs in the Hunter Valley, yet when asked what the plan was to replace the baseload power being lost, they had nothing to say other than they were at the “sensitive stage of discussions.”

The net-zero transition is a disaster that is wrecking breadwinner jobs. One Nation will extend the life of Eraring until new baseload coal power can be built at Bayswater, followed by a refit of Eraring to ensure further operation.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’ve got simple questions about Snowy. First, with reference to media reports on 24 November this year regarding a role for Snowy Hydro in saving the Tomago
aluminium smelter, the report states that Snowy Hydro will provide Tomago with electricity subsidised by the taxpayer from 2028. Are those plans advancing? How much power will be supplied, and how much will the subsidy cost taxpayers?

Mr Barnes: It’s always flattering to have the role of Snowy recognised, but that’s a question for the department. We’re not acting on that right now.

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t tell me about Tomago’s advancing?

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What about your role in that?

Mr Barnes: We’ve provided some limited advice to the department.

Mr Duggan: I answered this question earlier. The stage of discussions at the moment is sensitive from the point of view of commercial negotiations, so, in the interests of that, we’re not providing any more information at this stage around the process.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The next question is about reviewing Snowy Hydro’s generation capacity. I would have thought you were selling all the power you generate. How much spare capacity does Snowy Hydro have currently?

Mr Barnes: We currently have 5,500 megawatts of generation capacity.

Senator ROBERTS: That is 5.5 gigawatts.

Mr Barnes: Yes. We’re obviously building 2.86 gigawatts with Kurri Kurri and Snowy 2.0. We sell to multiple channels, whether it’s residential customers from our retail brands, large industrial customers or the
wholesale market more generally—our competitors and anyone who participates in that market. The contract duration varies, so we don’t necessarily have a 10-year home for all of our capacity, so our spare capacity does vary, but we are, of course, currently in the process of building 2.86 gigawatts, which we haven’t sold.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In fiscal year 2024, Snowy Hydro generated 3,937 gigawatt-hours in total. Even if your gas plant, the Hunter power project, is fully online by 2028, that’s only another 2,900 gigawatt-hours. Snowy Hydro 2.0 is only another 375 gigawatt hours. They won’t be available in 2028; you just said that’s going to be finished at the end of 2028. Can you give me an honest assessment of how much power you will have available for Tomago in 2028?

Mr Barnes: I won’t reference it to Tomago, but—

Senator ROBERTS: How much is available?

Mr Barnes: To describe how Snowy Hydro works: we’re a provider of what you might call last-resort capacity. Our average capacity factor, or the amount of time our plant runs relative to its capacity, is only 10 per
cent of the time. We expect, for example, Kurri Kurri to run for less than 10 per cent of the time. So we’re not really an energy provider; the energy provision is from the solar and wind that we enable. We have now contracted more solar and wind than we will produce from the Snowy 1 hydro scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: You mean receive it?

Mr Barnes: That is to receive it and be able to sell to customers packaged as a firm supply. We’re not really an energy provider; we are the provider who’s there when, currently, a coal plant fails, the wind is not blowing or the sun’s not shining. Energy provision isn’t really our game. Being there when another plant isn’t available is really our game. We enable energy to come to market.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being honest with me. Very few people will actually admit would you just admitted—that Snowy 2.0 is not an energy provider.

Mr Barnes: No, we act more like an insurance company.

Senator ROBERTS: Or a battery.

Mr Barnes: We back that insurance with physical assets.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You have the generation capacity in the Snowy scheme, but you’re limited by water, and of course we need to balance water with real environmentalism—environmental needs for water as well. Minister, as coal comes out of the grid, will the government be forced to change the rules to allow more water for hydro and less for the environment?

Senator Watt: I don’t really think that’s a question in this outcome. I’ve only just arrived here, but I presume all those sorts of issues were canvassed with the department earlier in the day. If you’ve got questions for Snowy Hydro, now is probably the time to ask those, but those are much broader policy issues that the relevant officials aren’t here for.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Barnes, your water need is one of the vulnerabilities of Snowy 2.0. The catchment area for the upper reservoir is very small. I know you’re going to recycle water, but nonetheless that surely must be a concern. I think someone identified it in the past as a concern that you will need to take water from other places, which means either farming or the environment.

Mr Barnes: Snowy Hydro is obviously subject to water regulation. We don’t make those rules, so we comply with those rules. The purpose of the Snowy scheme is to capture, store and release water to provide reliable
irrigation flows and support the electricity market. As you know, Snowy 2.0 is a recycling plan, so it doesn’t actually rely on those inflows. As I say, there are a couple of current reviews underway on the balance of environmental flows versus flows for irrigation and the electricity market, but we don’t make those. We are subject to water license compliance, which is the instrument that governs us 100 per cent each year.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that you don’t govern the water requirements and that you’re governed by regulation, but you foresee any need for increases?

Mr Barnes: Again, it is not really a question for Snowy Hydro. We will be subject to whatever regulation is put in place.

Senator ROBERTS: That would tend to indicate that maybe Snowy 2.0 is not terribly secure.

Mr Barnes: Like I say, Snowy 2.0 is a recycling plant, so it doesn’t really rely on any changes to inflows or outflows from the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the proposal to use Snowy Hydro to keep Tomago open complete nonsense?

Senator Watt: As you may be aware, I’ve been a little bit focused on some other matters over the last few days, involving EPBC reforms!

Senator DEAN SMITH: I thought that was last week!

Senator Watt: It was. I was on the job again on that today in Tasmania, as you may have seen. So I will ask Mr Barnes to say what he can about that matter. You might get better information out of him than you might out of me, but I’m not sure what he’s at liberty to discuss.

Mr Barnes: What is the question?

Senator ROBERTS: Is the proposal to use Snowy Hydro to keep Tomago open complete nonsense?

Mr Barnes: Again, it is not one for me to comment on. I think it’s a process for the department and the
government.

Senator ROBERTS: So Snowy Hydro can’t comment and the minister can’t comment?

Mr Duggan: I will repeat what I said earlier, which is that in earlier evidence we indicated that discussions with Tomago are ongoing. They’re through the industry department, not through this portfolio. We’re supporting them, but they are at a sensitive stage of discussions and therefore I wouldn’t feel at liberty to provide further information on the process, as that may upset those commercial discussions.

Senator ROBERTS: I will reiterate that Snowy Hydro 2.0 is only 375 gigawatt-hours and Snowy Hydro’s gas is almost half of Snowy Hydro’s generated power, so there seems to be not much room for error there.

Mr Duggan: This is, again, probably a question more for the industry department about those discussions with Tomago.

Senator Watt: We would love to have a chat with you about that later in the week.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The Eraring Power Station produced 14,000 gigawatt-hours in fiscal year 2023. Minister, will you take over Eraring, extend the life of Eraring and keep Tomago smelter open to save the thousands of jobs it supports at the smelter and in the Hunter?

Senator Watt: I’m not aware of any of those discussions, but, again, we’re here to answer questions about Snowy Hydro in this part of the program. I’m sure Minister Bowen will have more to say about that in coming—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m very concerned about the jobs in the Hunter though.

Senator Watt: As are we. You will be aware of the work that this Labor government has done to protect those jobs, as has the New South Wales Labor government.

Senator ROBERTS: And threatening coal.

Senator Watt: Well, it is a coal-fired power station that is coming to the end of its life whether we like it or
not.

Senator ROBERTS: It was brought forward, and now it’s been shoved back again. On the night of the election win in New South Wales state election in 2023, the incoming energy minister dropped a very big hint that they wanted to prolong the life of Eraring, and now they aren’t doing that.

Senator Watt: You’re talking about decisions of the New South Wales government. I couldn’t comment on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Your Labor government. Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Connecting Inland Rail to Growth

,

The Government is currently spending what will likely amount to $20 billion building and upgrading the Inland Rail line between Melbourne and Brisbane. However, Brisbane is constrained. Its ability to handle additional container traffic is very limited, and the railway connection from Toowoomba to Brisbane is almost at capacity. Widening the line is not possible.

For this reason, One Nation supports extending Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, which has the space to expand to become Australia’s main container Port. This would reduce import and export times and lower the cost per container, ultimately reducing prices for consumers.

I asked the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) where they were with this connection. The answer was – nowhere! How can we grow the economy and provide for the millions of new arrivals the Albanese Government is allowing in without a corresponding increase in our productive capacity?

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. The current planning for Inland Rail includes consideration of a connection to the Port of Gladstone. Where are we up to on that?  

Mr W Johnson: I think I updated you last time that there were some interested parties, in terms of the Port of Gladstone, in connectivity to Inland Rail and the alignment of Inland Rail as it is. GreenLink, in particular, is the organisation that ARTC continue to have some interaction with. They’re progressing through what design operations and/or funding could look like for that in the future. We remain engaged with GreenLink, as ARTC. Inland Rail remain focused on delivering the project to Parkes, as it is today approved, and the enabling works north of Parkes. They’re not focused around any connection, at this point, with GreenLink.  That’s  what ARTC has been working with.  

Senator ROBERTS: Regarding GreenLink, do they have the finance?  

Mr W Johnson: I’m not sure of the exact status. I’d have to take that on notice, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do they also have the intellectual property, the property feasibility study?  

Mr W Johnson: My understanding is they’re working on both concept designs as well as funding programs, and they’re well advanced in those endeavours.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you working with IPG global?  

Mr W Johnson: No. Sorry, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Port of Gladstone currently does not have a major container-handing function. An application to build one has been delayed for 11 years. What steps have you taken to ensure the Gladstone port is capable of accepting container traffic when the connection is completed? For clarity, it makes no sense to connect Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone if the port can’t handle container traffic.  

Mr W Johnson: There’s no work from ourselves in terms of the Port of Gladstone.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, just as an aside, the Port of Gladstone could be a development of major national significance, with regard to container terminals. Why is there a delay on that?  

Senator McCarthy: I can take your question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I’m deeply concerned with the delay, mainly, in the connection and the approval of Gladstone—the processing for a container-handling application. Going back to the ARTC, if the connection is not built, the Port of Brisbane becomes a primary container port. On notice, can you provide the data you have on the remaining rail spots to bring container trains to the Port of Brisbane, the capacity of the port and the expected volume of container traffic Inland Rail would generate from import and export traffic for the Port of Brisbane.  

Mr W Johnson: Sorry, I’d have to take the details of container movements on notice; I’m happy to do so. We continue some interaction and engagement with the Port of Brisbane around what connectivity would look like in the future, but there are a significant number of products that are domestic bound from both North Queensland and also southern states into Queensland. That is the purpose of the connectivity of the existing and the future inland rail.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, going back to the previous question, is there any way you can get onto the Gladstone Ports Corporation and ask them to resolve the application immediately?  

Senator McCarthy: I’d have to take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/by

CCP Darwin Port Election Promise Still BROKEN!

,

Darwin Port under CCP control for 99 years! While PM Albanese calls Communist China a “friend,” they harass our aircraft, wage trade wars and control our most strategic northern port. Their actions speak louder than words.

One Nation stands firm: Australian assets MUST be in Australian hands. Our sovereignty and security are NOT for sale!

No more election promises – hand back Darwin Port now!

Transcript

Australians are sick of the benefits of our natural resources and critical infrastructure being siphoned off to foreign multinational companies. Chinese company Landbridge will operate the Port of Darwin for 99 years. Make no mistake; that means it’s under Chinese Communist Party control. While Australia differentiates between private companies and government, there’s no such separation in communist China. Every company is a direct arm of the ruling communist party and serves its purposes, so the Chinese Communist Party is running Darwin port. 

It’s not just a profitmaking venture; it’s Australia’s most strategic major northern port. Darwin in general is crucial for our Defence Force’s deployment. It’s crucial for securing our borders and millions of square kilometres of northern ocean. The security implications of having a potential foreign adversary decide how the Darwin port is developed and used over the next 99 years are obvious. Australians should own Australian assets, especially ones as critical as our Darwin port. 

To be clear, One Nation supports Australians with Chinese heritage, and they have been living here as Australians since our gold rushes in the 1880s, and we support the Chinese people. We oppose, though, the government of China, the Chinese Communist Party, with their totalitarian abuse of humans, censorship and rule though fear. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this week said communist China is a ‘friend’. Let’s see what our friend has said about Australia. During our diplomatic freeze for asking where COVID came from, a Chinese government official said, ‘Why should China care about Australia?’ and said phone calls would be meaningless. In 2020 communist China issued 14 demands of Australia, criticising us for not censoring the press and for having honest conversations about China’s activities. They’ve illegally waged trade wars on Australian lobsters, beef and barley, trying to coerce Australia because we dared to ask where COVID really came from 

This year communist China’s navy circumnavigated Australia, conducting unannounced live-fire exercises that diverted aircraft flights. This week Chinese aircraft harassed and released flares in front of an Australian aircraft over the disputed Paracel Islands, the latest in a string of similar dangerous incidents. It’s very weird behaviour for a friend! They seem to mean it when they say, ‘Why should China care about Australia?’ 

The United States seem to know the strategic value of northern Australia better than our own government does. They’ve been encouraging us to develop and fortify our infrastructure there so that we may have a chance of defending ourselves in a conflict. A US official reportedly said: 

We are surprised this issue has not yet been settled, and we are closely watching what the Albanese Government is doing. There has been some concern that getting back control of Darwin Port is no longer a priority for Australia. 

It’s hard to disagree. 

Before the election we heard again and again, as early as February this year, that a big decision was around the corner. Since the election, we’ve heard nothing—another broken election promise. In July, Prime Minister Albanese met with President Xi, of China, and had the chance to sort it all out. Instead, when asked if he raised the issue of the port, the Prime Minister said he didn’t need to—gutless. 

Should this foreign government have a 99-year hold on our most strategic northern port? On security reasons alone, One Nation’s answer very clearly is no. Putting aside the security and sovereignty issue, there’s basic common sense. As I’ve outlined, Darwin port will essentially be under the control of the Chinese Communist Party government for 99 years. They will operate, develop and profit from Darwin port for nearly a century. The communist Chinese government will reap the profits from Australia’s most northern strategic port. 

There’s a reason a foreign government would seek to get a stranglehold on a critical asset like Darwin port for 99 years: to develop it, of course, and then squeeze every dollar they can out of it to return a tidy profit back to their treasury reserves. If anyone is reaping some kind of profit from critical infrastructure in Australia, it should be the Australian government and the Australian people. At the minimum, it should be a publicly owned, wholly Australian company. This extends to Australian farmland, water, critical power infrastructure and residential homes. All critical assets in Australia should be in our Australian hands, not in the hands of a foreign government or foreign multinational corporation. Labor, get some courage and integrity and put Australia first. 

/by

China Strengthens Foothold in Antarctica

,

During this session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, I raised with them that in 2021, the Coalition government abandoned plans to build an all-weather, all-season paved runway in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Minister Watt confirmed that there are currently no plans to build such a runway and noted that Australia continues to rely on a blue ice runway during summer – leaving our bases largely isolated from the outside world for most of the year.

I pointed out that China is expanding its presence in the region, having already established three bases within the Australian Antarctic Territory. I also raised concerns about the recent reduction in the number of planned programs; however officials denied any funding cuts, asserting that Australia is meeting its obligations in Antarctic research despite China’s growing influence.

When questioned about China’s policy of conducting dual-purpose military and civilian research at its stations, the Department responded that military research would breach the Antarctic Treaty. China does not appear to share such concerns.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll be quick. In November 2021, the then coalition government made the poor decision to abandon the proposed construction of an all-weather paved runway near the Davis research centre in Antarctica due to perceived concerns of potential disruption of bird and seal colonies. It was a very poor decision, in my opinion, that missed the opportunity for Australia to advance its claims to usage of their allocated portion of Antarctica under the existing Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959. That will be up for renegotiation in some years hence or sooner if the treaty is challenged. My understanding is that there’s no formal expiry date. My first question is: will this government, the Labor government, reconsider and confirm the building of an all-weather runway to open up the Antarctic to year-round access via an eight-hour flight and replace total reliance on sea access that may take weeks?  

Senator Watt: I’m not aware of that being considered. The officials can elaborate if they have info on that.  

Ms E Campbell: At the moment, there are no plans for an all-weather runway, but we do have a really strong and capable blue ice runway. We have four-hour flights that go to Antarctica through the summer, and that’s a critical support for our stations and access. It’s at the Wilkins runway, which is about four hours, by tractor train, from Casey Station. I’ve had the pleasure of going on that flight a couple of times. It is a wonderful asset for Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that an all-weather runway would radically reduce the operating costs and logistics of accessing Australia’s research stations. It would be the first and only all-weather runway on the continent and provide access to speedy evacuation in medical or other emergencies.  

Ms E Campbell: We certainly use the blue ice runway for access to the station.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by blue ice?  

Ms E Campbell: It’s a runway set up on the glacier just above Casey Station. We land jets on that runway in the summer months. To your point about ‘cheaper and effective’, my understanding—and it was before my time in this role—is that one of the reasons that the previous government decided not to progress with the all-weather runway was cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the context of changing geopolitical dynamics, especially when China is expanding its influence in the Southern Ocean and in Antarctica, what else is Australia doing to protect its interests from encroachment in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica?

Ms E Campbell: We’ve got a really strong program in Antarctica. We talked previously about our science voyages and the step-up in our science work in Antarctica. Elements such as inspections, which we’ve talked about, are part of our influence in Antarctica. Going to international meetings, rebuilding our stations—these are all really strong parts. We can certainly provide references to the strategy and action plan. We’ve got a million year ice core where we’re travelling 1,200 kilometres inland with a traverse tractor to drill for ice. We’ve also reestablished the ability to go across our territory and explore new areas, which is really exciting.  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that scientific programs have been cut. Why is the supply of critical food and medicine no longer assured? Has the government not heard of the phrase: ‘Use it or lose it’? That’s important for my next question.  

Ms E Campbell: I don’t accept that we’ve cut funding. The government has invested more than ever. Funding has gone up.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no cut to scientific funding?  

Ms E Campbell: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. China is currently the most active national player in the Antarctic, yet Australia has the largest designated proportion of area claimed of the Antarctic continent, at 42 per cent—so over 40 per cent. It is referred to as the Australian Antarctic Territory and, in landmass, is the largest territory of Australia. China has five research bases there, and it’s soon to be six, with three of the bases it’s built within the Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia has only three bases in the territory and a fourth at Macquarie Island. Am I correct so far?  

Ms E Campbell: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chinese research stations have a dual purpose, supporting both military and civil functions. Common sense suggests that this will influence a Chinese call for a recognised claim for a part of the Australian Antarctic Territory, at our expense. Australia must do something soon to reclaim its senior role in Antarctic affairs. Will this government do what the coalition failed to do and build this vital runway to protect our claim to our territory?  

Ms E Campbell: I might correct a couple of points of fact. First of all, you said at the beginning that—and I did say it was right—China was the most active player. China is certainly very active in Antarctica, as are many other countries. I think the US would say they have been the most active player, and I think we’re close behind. There’s not evidence that there is a dual-use function of Antarctic stations, and that would be a breach of the treaty. There has been no finding—  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘dual use’?  

Ms E Campbell: You talked about dual military and scientific use. That would be a breach of the Antarctic Treaty, and there is no evidence that that has happened. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you think that would bother China?  

Ms E Campbell: I think you’re asking my opinion. Under the treaty, that would not be allowed.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we’re leaving it to the Chinese?  

Ms E Campbell: That’s not what I said. 

Mr Sullivan: They’re your words, Senator, not Ms Campbell’s.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Chair 

/by

Government Silent on Immigration Numbers

,

Australia has up to 3.7 million noncitizens—in a population of just 27.4 million.

Hospitals are stretched, housing is unaffordable, and life is more expensive.

Why won’t the government reveal the real number?

Transcript

Not counting tourists, the number of people in Australia today who are not Australian citizens could be as high as 3.7 million. In a country with an estimated population of just 27.4 million people, this huge influx is stretching our hospitals, making housing unaffordable and making life more expensive. 

Noncitizens must have a visa to be in Australia. These are split into two categories: permanent residency visas and temporary visas. The latest data from the Department of Home Affairs shows that, excluding the 320,000 tourist and crew visas, there are currently 2.5 million people in Australia on temporary visas. The data on permanent residency visas is not clear; it’s murky. Between 2000 and 2021, three million permanent residency visas were issued to permanent migrants. In 2023, it was estimated that 59 per cent of those three million permanent visa holders have become Australian citizens. As of 2021, that would leave 1.2 million people who have not become citizens and are still on permanent visas, plus any more permanent residents who’ve arrived since 2021. Adding that best estimate of permanent visa holders to the 2.5 million people on temporary visas, we get 3.7 million people who are potentially in the country on visas. 

So what’s the real number? How many people are currently in Australia on a permanent visa, and why won’t the government tell Australians? Is it just too embarrassing for the government, after they promised to reduce immigration, to admit how many people in Australia aren’t Australian citizens? My new One Nation colleague Senator Tyron Whitten, Senator for Western Australia, will be asking the government about this number in question time today. In the middle of a housing crisis, the government had better know how many additional people it is letting into our country, undermining our standard of living and way of life. 

/1 Comment/by

The PM Goes to China – Again

,

Mentions pandas, trade, probably dumplings – but the Port of Darwin? Crickets.

Australia’s most strategic port is still run by a foreign power — and our PM forgot to bring it up. Classic!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Albo off to China.

PM Albanese: It’s very good to be back in Beijing for my second visit as Prime Minister.

Senator ROBERTS: Here’s something that I don’t think he will bring up. The Port of Darwin.

Journalist: President Xi didn’t raise the Port of Darwin. And yeah, you didn’t use the opportunity meeting him to explain your policy on that.

PM Albanese: I don’t need to.

Senator ROBERTS: It was a huge election promise to get it back from the Chinese.

Journalist: Often times there’s a shot across the bow on the sale of the Port of Darwin. Did that issue come up in your two hour discussion?

PM Albanese: Well, the answer is no. The answer, well that shouldn’t come as any surprise.

Senator ROBERTS: He made lots of words, lots of promises, but he said he would do something about the Port of Darwin.

Journalist: Did the President express any objection to your plans about bringing the Port of Darwin back into Australian hands or any potential response that China might take to that?

PM Albanese: No, it wasn’t raised.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s Australia’s most strategic northern port. So does Australia operate it? No, it doesn’t. We don’t operate it. A foreign communist country operates it. So will Anthony Albanese stand up for this country and tell Xi Jinping to give the Port of Darwin back?

PM Albanese: No, it wasn’t raised.

/3 Comments/by