Posts

Snowy 2.0: A Masterclass in Government Failure

,

During this Estimates hearing back in February I questioned Dennis Barnes, the CEO of the infamous Snowy Hydro 2.0 that’s estimated to cost taxpayers $12 billion … for now.

This project began without a transparent business case and is currently locked into an anti-competitive contractor structure whilst relying on a cost-plus model that leaves taxpayers carrying the blowouts.

Add years of delays, poor early planning, and constant political blame-shifting, and the project looks less like nation-building and more like a multibillion dollar waste of taxpayer money.

Despite the project’s spiralling costs and repeated failures, the government continues to shift blame rather than accept responsibility.

Barnaby Joyce has openly acknowledged his mistake, yet those overseeing Snowy Hydro 2.0 refuse to show the same accountability.

And it’s you. The Australian taxpayers, that are expected to foot the bill.

One Nation says: it’s time to cut our losses on this white elephant and get back to what works – cheap base-load energy.

Transcript

CHAIR: Thank you. I’ll give the call to Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. Good evening, Mr Barnes.  

Mr Barnes: Good evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your principal contractor is FGJV, Future Generation Joint Venture, which is three companies: Webuild, Clough and Lane Construction. Webuild as an Italian company who has across the construction arc of Snowy Hydro bought out Clough and Lane Constructions, so the joint venture is Webuild, Webuild and Webuild. Is that correct?  

Mr Barnes: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s significant because one arm of Webuild is unlikely to find fault or offer a cheaper option than another arm of Webuild. They really have this project in their grip, don’t they?  

Mr Barnes: We have a principal contractor called Future Generation Joint Venture. That joint venture was chosen through a competitive process before my time. Circumstances meant that Clough, who went into receivership, I believe, in 2022, was acquired by Webuild at that time. The contractual counterparty for Snowy Hydro has not changed.  

Senator ROBERTS: So who’s the contractual partner?  

Mr Barnes: Future Generation Joint Venture.  

Senator ROBERTS: Which is Webuild, Webuild, Webuild.  

Mr Barnes: There are three Webuild subsidiaries.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. So the current contract with Webuild uses an incentivised target cost model, also called a cost-plus margin. Is that correct?  

Mr Barnes: The important part is the incentivised bit. There are elements of the project which are more complex and challenging, which are on a cost-recovery basis, but is a large proportion of the contract where the contractor Future Generation Joint Venture is incentivised to do a better job on time, on cost, and, if they don’t, then they suffer some penalties.  

Senator ROBERTS: But, essentially, it’s cost-plus margin.  

Mr Barnes: Elements of it are cost-plus margin; elements of it are incentivised target costs, where the contractor is incentivised to deliver the lowest cost and fastest outcome, and, if they don’t, then they incur penalties.  

Senator ROBERTS: Being cost-plus, the higher the cost, the more money the contractor makes through the plus margin part.  

Mr Barnes: There is a series of triggers and caps within the contract which mean that the contractor doesn’t continue to earn as the cost of the project increases. In fact, the recovery from the contractor means their return goes down. 

 Senator ROBERTS: Do you use external auditors to ensure every cost is legit?  

Mr Barnes: We have a monthly process conducted by Ernst & Young, who go through every line item and every subcontractor payment and assure those to us.  

Senator ROBERTS: So they’re external auditors?  

Mr Barnes: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: This question might actually be good news. How many apprentices and trainees are working on Snowy Hydro? I understand you have a school based apprenticeships and traineeships program.  

Mr Barnes: I think the round number—and we can provide the detail on Snowy Hydro as opposed to Snowy 2—is more than 40 people in what we call development programs. That include apprentices, vacation students and graduates—across that spectrum. We can provide the detail. We do produce a report each year with that input. We’re happy to provide that. 

Senator ROBERTS: One Nation believes very much in apprenticeships. They used to be a fantastic system, and they’ve been peeled off.  

Mr Barnes: I’m a product of an apprenticeship myself, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. Minister, without reflecting on the performance of Mr Barnes, who is making good progress, you understand that the taxpayers are annoyed that the cost just keeps going up and up under the current model. It started without an open business case or cost-benefit analysis. Costs will continue to go up through 2028. Is that correct?  

Senator Ayres: Yes. I think this was a project that commenced under the—  

Senator ROBERTS: Turnbull government.  

Senator Ayres: Turnbull government, when Mr Joyce was the deputy prime minister. Mr Joyce and that government announced the program. It’s a little bit like some of the dam projects that Mr Joyce constantly talks about. I think he said he was going to deliver 100 dams during the life of the Abbott-Morrison-Turnbull catastrophe—and delivered one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Which one was that?  

Senator Ayres: I don’t know, but one out of 100—one per cent. A lot of talk, not much water.  

Senator ROBERTS: He found it very frustrating, didn’t he?  

Senator Ayres: Well, he wasn’t much good. The assessment that was made on Snowy 2.0 was that the cost escalation was partly due to what was described as design immaturity at final investment decision and site conditions and geology, which should have been known at the time. Unlike Mr Joyce and Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor—all these characters—we haven’t covered up—  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t mentioned Sussan Ley.  

Senator Ayres: I’m only pointing at the people who are responsible. I don’t know about—maybe, maybe; certainly Mr Joyce is at the heart of this free-wheeling catastrophe. We haven’t covered up the costs, and we haven’t covered up the delays. What we, as a government, have done is work with Mr Barnes and the team to make sure that this nation-building project gets back on track. It is an important project for our future energy security. Despite the damage of a ham-fisted start, with a focus on announcements and the sort of approach that was taken by Mr Joyce and his colleagues, we are working hard. The project is now 70 per cent complete. It’s still got some quite substantial work to go. You are right to point to work that has been done by Snowy and contractors in terms of apprenticeships. That’s a good contribution. We’re very focused on this project proceeding as quickly as possible in as low cost a way as possible but transparently. We don’t think good public policy is supported by deliberately concealing facts about important national projects like this.  

Senator ROBERTS: It did bother me that Prime Minister Turnbull at the time heavily redacted the business case. That certainly did bother me because I wasn’t in favour of it at the start. But its cost has gone from roughly $2 billion, I think, to about $20 billion.  

Senator Ayres: I might go to Mr Barnes on the cost questions because I think we should be precise. The cost has escalated significantly, but let’s have some precision.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had a lot of imprecisions in the past. Is it worth continuing?  

Mr Barnes: The cost approval that was budgeted was $5.9 billion, and the project reset that we concluded in 2023 was $12 billion.  

Senator Ayres: I thought the figure was closer to $12 billion than $20 billion.  

Senator ROBERTS: With all the extra transmission lines and all the ancillaries?  

Senator Ayres: Yes, well these are nation-building projects that are required to deliver an electricity system. I agree with Mr Joyce 1.0, not 2.0 or whatever version he is now. In 2020, he said: The Federal Government has delivered millions of dollars of investment already for renewable energy generation right here on our doorstep in places like Inverell and Glen Innes. He then went on to say: We’ve made massive investments in the New England into renewable energy— I’m passionate about this because it’s where I come from. We’ve made massive investments in the New England into renewable energy, in fact we’re one of the biggest renewable energy hubs in Australia. Just like the Inland Rail, others talked about it for years and I made sure it happened. 

Senator ROBERTS: And he now has the courage to admit his folly.  

Senator Ayres: In 2021, he then went on to say, ‘In the long term, we understand that there may be a transition to other fuel sources, and we’ve got to make sure that we’re also part of that transition,’ something his constituents agree with. In 2017, he said: With other projects like the Sapphire Wind Farm going ahead— and here he is backing in a wind farm that he was cutting the ribbon at, extolling the virtues of this very important development—  

Senator ROBERTS: And he’s had the courage to recognise he was wrong.  

Senator Ayres: He said: With other projects like the Sapphire Wind Farm going ahead, it also shows that the New England is leading the way in renewable energy production and I will continue to advocate for the region as a growing power supplier for Australia. Before his decline to where he’s got to now, he said some quite commonsense things, this bloke.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, at least he’s got the strength of character to admit he was wrong.  

Senator Ayres: He’s a long way away from common sense now.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s something that you haven’t done, despite the rising cost of electricity.  

Senator Ayres: He’s a long way away from common sense now.  

CHAIR: Senators, thank you for that exchange. Senator Roberts, I will have to wind you up.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve finished my questions. 

/0 Comments/by

Net Zero is Crippling Australia

,

The “global push” for Net Zero by 2050 is a myth. China’s target is 2060, India’s is 2070, and the US has pulled out. Australia is joining a minority club that only accounts for 30% of global “emissions”, in turn crippling our economy while the biggest polluters “keep on polluting.”

Of course, Matt Kean doesn’t agree with this, saying that over 80% of global GDP is committed to Net Zero. He said, if Australia doesn’t jump on the clean energy train, we get left behind by global markets and investors.

Wind and solar are driving power bills through the roof. We went from the cheapest electricity to the most expensive outside of Europe. Coal demand is actually increasing globally.

How does Matt Kean respond to this? He cites Bloomberg data that show new solar and wind are way cheaper than new coal and that renewables are driving prices down.

The climate agenda is built on “dodgy modelling.” Shutting down farmland for carbon credits is killing agriculture, and green jobs aren’t replacing real job losses.

The Labor government is destroying Australia’s industry for a “climate scam.”

A One Nation government will end UN Net Zero, exit the UN Paris Agreement and re-energise Australia with cheap, reliable electricity – putting more money back in your pocket.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing.  

Mr Kean: Nice to see you, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Good to see you again. Mr Kean, last estimates you gave me an update on your statement last year which provided net zero metrics. They were your metrics—specifically, what percentage of the world was covered by net zero mandates. You might remember that.  

Mr Kean: Yes, we talked about it last time.  

Senator ROBERTS: These figures were 78 per cent of global emissions, you said, and 79 per cent of GDP and 87 per cent of the global population. These figures, we’ve found, are flawed. China’s target is not 2050; it’s 2060.  

Mr Kean: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: India’s is 2070. The United States has pulled out altogether. Our target is 2050, at which time Australia will share our misery with countries having just about 30 per cent of emissions, about 40 per cent of GDP and just 20 per cent of the world’s population. Why pretend net zero by 2050 is the dominant position, when in fact we’re in a minority, based on your metrics?  

Mr Kean: That’s just not true, Senator. You’re obviously entitled to your opinions—  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re not opinions; they’re facts.  

Mr Kean: But you’re not entitled to your own facts. The reality is that 195 countries have signed up to the Paris Agreement. We’ll get you some figures shortly as to how many countries have signed up to net zero by 2050. But you make the point yourself. China and India have signed up to net zero. The majority of the world’s GDP has committed to this global effort to confront global warming. If you’re suggesting that Australia should be left behind from where markets are going, where capital is going, where investment and opportunity are going, then you’re arguing for a poorer country, and that’s not something I want to see.  

Senator ROBERTS: Rather than saying these are my opinions, these are based on hard facts. The facts I told you are truthful.  

Mr Kean: Sorry, what are the facts? A hundred and ninety-five countries have signed up under the Paris Agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that later.  

Mr Kean: The majority of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero—  

Senator ROBERTS: China’s target is not 2050 but 2060. India’s is 2070. The US is out altogether—the second biggest economy in the world. Germany is making signs of reversing. Our target is 2050, at which time just about 30 per cent of emissions will come from net net-zero-by-2050 countries, which are about 40 per cent of GDP and just 20 per cent of the world’s population. If they’re wrong, show me where.  

Mr Kean: But the majority of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero emissions. The markets that underwrite—  

Senator ROBERTS: Not by 2050.  

Mr Kean: Committed to net zero emissions. The markets that have underwritten our prosperity for generations are changing the type of goods and services they’re looking for, and we’re very well placed to prosper in that low-carbon global economy. I’m not sure why you don’t want Australia to benefit from this global megatrend. Maybe you could explain.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is because I want the cheapest energy possible in Australia.  

Mr Kean: I’m trying to explain to you that the majority of the world’s GDP is heading in this direction. It’s something like 84 per cent. Over 80 per cent of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero emissions. That means they’re looking for low-carbon steel, cement, energy, transport—a whole range of things—and we’re really well placed to provide it, so we can do well by doing good. I don’t know why you’ve got a problem with that.  

Senator ROBERTS: The forecasts for coal consumption are increasing dramatically. It’s not decarbonisation.  

Mr Kean: The demand for energy use is increasing dramatically, and the proportion of renewables is increasing dramatically. I think you’ll find that there’s more investment going into renewables than there is any other form of technology. What that means is that Australians can benefit because we can produce renewable energy at a cheaper cost than most other countries. That means that, for energy-intensive industries, we’ll have a competitive advantage, and we should be grabbing that with both hands rather than people like you standing in the way of Australia’s biggest economic opportunity.  

Senator ROBERTS: The cheapest electricity user has a competitive advantage, and right now every country that has adopted a significant proportion of solar and wind has increased its costs and is not competitive. We used to have the cheapest electricity in the world. Now, outside of Europe, we’re the most expensive, and only three countries in Europe are more expensive than us. We’re on the road to bankruptcy.  

Mr Kean: That’s just wrong. You’ve got to be called out for that nonsense. It’s not true.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fact.  

Mr Kean: It’s not fact.  

Senator McDONALD: [Inaudible]  

Mr Kean: Can I address that? Today—  

Senator McDONALD: What about record coal demand—  

Mr Kean: renewable energy is putting downward—  

CHAIR: Let me just pause for a moment. I’m sorry to interrupt you, Mr Kean. Senator MacDonald—  

Senator McDONALD: Sorry. It’s not my questions. I’m sorry.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts has asked the questions. If you’ll address his question. Senator MacDonald, if you’ll allow him to do so, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said you were going to give me some figures?  

Senator Ayres: Well, I’m not sure there’s any value in trying to engage you on this question. You’ve been impervious to facts and argument and the Australian interest the whole time I’ve been engaging with you on this committee about these questions. It’s imported ideology from One Nation. Exporting jobs—that’s your approach. It’s the One Nation-National Party coalition here, and only one part of that is winning that argument. Senator Henderson interjecting— 

Senator Ayres: I can’t help you with this. There’s a set of facts. Mr Kean‘s doing his best to work through them. You’re shouting over the top of him. We’ll do our best.  

CHAIR: Alright, let’s get let’s get back to this because we are late in the evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll ask my second question.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: In 2050, Australia, the UK, Japan, Canada, some South American countries and the EU—basically the 2050 club—will in your world have zero greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s emissions will be down because our economy will be decimated. China, India and the US will hoover up our industry and leave us with no emissions because we will have no industry. Your sessions often talk about modelling. Have you modelled what the Australian economy will look like in 2050 from the perspective of GDP per person and share of national income going to wage and salary earners? These are the key metrics for standard of living. Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: Well, I was trying to answer your question from earlier, though Senator Ayres took up the platform from me. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which is a very recognised analyst of energy matters, looked at the cost of new-build energy. It quotes solar at about US$39 per megawatt-hour. Wind is a bit higher, at $40 to $55 per megawatt-hour. Battery prices fell eight per cent last year to about $108 per kilowatt-hour. Again, in January, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated that levellised cost of electricity for new coal was about A$297 per megawatt-hour without a carbon price. In Australia, new solar was $68 a megawatt-hour; wind, $115 a megawatthour; and then new coal without a carbon price, nearly $300 a megawatt-hour. So you’re arguing nonsense. Clearly, from an expert analyst— 

Senator ROBERTS: Bloomberg has also said we’re going to transition to perfectly good—  

Mr Kean: I’m just trying to say the facts are there, but you’re just quoting nonsense. I’m reading from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. I’m happy to table Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s report.  

Senator ROBERTS: Please do.  

Mr Kean: Maybe you could table your report from the dark recesses of the web.  

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest, the desperate, the fearful. That’s what you two are doing.  

Mr Kean: Okay, but you can’t table that. I’m reading from—  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t label me. Just use hard facts. I’ll happily table it.  

Mr Kean: I’m happy to table the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report.  

Senator Ayres: He just did, Senator Roberts—honestly.  

Senator ROBERTS: To drill down on this: Australia’s system of carbon credit units encourages productive farmland to be shut down and local native vegetation replanted in return for carbon dioxide credits. This reduces agricultural and grazing land below critical mass for survival. Have you modelled the reduction in agricultural output—food, fibre and red meat—and the increased costs of agriculture?  

Mr Kean: This is a huge economic opportunity for Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: There have been various models done.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: There have been various—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not answering my question.  

Mr Kean: But I’ve said there are various models that the Climate Change Authority relies on for this information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, give us the names of those?  

Mr Kean: We can provide you with the relevant documents.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Ms Rowley: I just note that, in the authority’s advice to the government with respect to the 2035 target, one of the inputs to that, as mentioned earlier, was modelling by CSIRO. It looked at it looked at—  

Senator ROBERTS: The same people that did GenCost.  

Ms Rowley: If I could finish my answer—it looked at emissions reduction opportunities across the economy, including through land based sequestration and in agriculture. It showed what it would look like for the economy. To your point earlier about what it does for GDP and GDP per capita, the GDP growth was unaffected by the decarbonisation of the economy. From memory, the economy continued to grow at 2.7 per cent per annum whilst the economy decarbonised, including through enhanced sequestration across the landscape. CSIRO modelling, as well as other work that the authorities have drawn on and is published by agencies such as ABARES, Ernst & Young and other sources, shows that that can be done whilst agriculture sustains and, indeed, increases its production and increases its output.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide us with the title of that CSIRO study?  

Ms Rowley: The CSIRO report is directly quoted in the authority’s advice to the government on the 2035 target and it’s available on the CSIRO website. We’re very happy to table to table it as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Great. In December estimates, you pointed out that one of Australia’s largest exports, coal, was facing a future of reduced demand from overseas buyers. Korea was mentioned as an example. By 2050, we will have exited our own domestic use of coal for power. That means more reductions in our GDP, more jobs gone and more communities closed down. The future for our economy is bleak because of net zero measures, isn’t it?  

Mr Kean: It doesn’t mean those things at all, and I pointed out earlier why it doesn’t mean those things. As I said, Bloomberg New Energy Finance say that the cost of new coal is about $300 per megawatt hour, compared with the costs of wind and solar and batteries, which continue to fall; they’re much cheaper, and they continue to come down the cost curve. So actually what will see Australia become more prosperous is embracing those new technologies and helping let them use it to underwrite a new era of prosperity for our industry, for our manufacturing sector and for our community, and that’s something we should be grabbing with both hands. That’s something you and I can agree on: we want Australia to be more prosperous. And making decisions based on the facts and the evidence is exactly how we do that.  

Ms Rowley: And perhaps I could add, Senator, noting your interest in modelling—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m vary wary of modelling, believe me! The whole climate scam is based on dodgy modelling.  

Ms Rowley: But you were interested in looking at the sources. In terms of the economic growth opportunities that come with the transition to net zero for Australia, explored in Treasury’s modelling for the government’s net zero plan, it included analysis of the development of new industries, like green metals and other clean fuels—and there are figures in the report if you’d like to look—comparing that with the anticipated decline in Australia’s fossil fuel exports as the world decarbonises. We don’t control global demand for our fossil fuel exports but we do have opportunities to build and grow new clean industries, which, at least according to the Treasury analysis, could account for an even greater share of our economy by 2050.  

Senator ROBERTS: Kumbaya! What a wonderful world! You’re not saying these are net zero jobs, are you?  

Mr Kean: Could I just say, to reiterate what the CEO said, that the CSIRO modelling did show that the economy continues to grow under the decarbonisation pathways we’ve modelled.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the GenCost modelling from CSIRO?  

Mr Kean: Yes, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. You’re aware of the flaws?  

Senator Ayres: Oh, honestly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question: employment in Australia went backward in April, didn’t it? The number of people in a job was less at the end of the month than at the start. Green jobs are doing a crap job of making up for job losses in the productive economy. Mr Kean, what will be the employment rate in 2050 under net zero? How many more people will lose their jobs?  

Mr Kean: Well, I must reject the premise of the way you framed that question, and I’ll cite the treasurer of New South Wales, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, who this week said that New South Wales was projected to go into recession had it not been for the renewables investment that was being made into that state. The energy roadmap, of which I was the architect and which we legislated with multipartisan support, has kept the New South Wales economy afloat, and that’s something we should all be proud of, and we should be working to grow our economy and grow our prosperity, not standing in the way of doing so, as you’re trying to do, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Crisafulli LNP government is doing the opposite.  

Mr Kean: Well, I’m talking about the renewables roadmap in New South Wales, which has kept the state out of recession. It’s not me as a Liberal saying that; it’s the new treasurer saying it, based on a Liberal policy. It’s something I’m very proud of, and we should be continuing to campaign on building a stronger, more prosperous nation. And let me tell you how to do that: it’s by building more renewables, not less.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Senator Ayres: Senator, that was a sort of far-right Beat Poet! I’m not quite sure what you were doing over the dinner break. But it’s utter rubbish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Dishonest, incompetent, lazy, fearful—  

CHAIR: Senator Ayres and Senator Roberts. 

/2 Comments/by

Wind Turbine Asbestos Shock!

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Who does the testing? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: With the 42? 

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

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

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

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

Mr Reynolds: Certainly. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: And WA. 

Senator Watt: Oh yes; I forgot about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: And soon New South Wales. 

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Except in one electorate. 

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

Senator DUNIAM: This is the entertainment. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Reynolds: That’s right. 

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any prosecutions outstanding? 

Mr Reynolds: For asbestos related issues? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Reynolds: Not to my awareness. 

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Reynolds: That’s a good summary. 

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

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

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

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

CHAIR: We’re full of comedians today. 

/2 Comments/by

Let the United Nations Collapse!

, , ,
The UN’s dire financial situation could save Australia a fortune.

The United Nations is in a state of ‘imminent financial collapse’.

Apparently.

Their decline is moving at a glacial pace. Nations are drip-feeding them cash while the UN negotiates for structural change to how they handle money. Essentially, they want to keep more of it. No thanks.

Since its establishment in 1945, justified with a view to ‘maintain international peace, security, and develop friendly relations among states’, I believe the project has become an expensive failure that inflicts genuine harm on the world.

Far from solving the endemic social and economic problems besieging third-world nations, the presence of the UN – and its credit card – has turned misery and corruption into a sustainable industry further weaponised in the hands of powerful nations that govern themselves in contradiction to everything the UN claims to stand for.

Besides, if the goal is to gather all the nations together to ‘talk about things’ in a neutral space – they can hold a conference, like everyone else.

This is the modern world. We no longer require an Earth-sized bureaucracy to babysit dialogue.

Why is the UN in trouble?

The UN’s recent claims of economic strife come as a direct result of America protesting against its aggressive anti-capitalist, anti-democratic goals and dubious projects. In response, the US has withheld funds and exited key UN bodies.

President Donald Trump successfully sold the point to the American people that they should not pay for the comfort of those seeking the demise of the US hegemony.

That said, much like the fabricated Climate Crisis, the deadline for this UN economic disaster is poorly defined and frequently used as a donation rallying call.

Which is a shame, because the UN can’t collapse fast enough.

We may never be able to convince the ‘it’s just a piece of paper’ Coalition to pull out of the Paris Agreement or unsubscribe from the overreach of the World Health Organisation. If it were to fall apart on its own, the work would be done for us. Freedom is freedom, and we’re not about to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Still, there does seem to be some truth to the UN’s economic strife.

Everywhere you go, the global bureaucracy is shaking its charity tin next to politicians’ ears.

Unfortunately, an emotionally and morally weak Labor Party – along with a skittish Opposition – govern Australia. They are likely to reach into the pockets of Australian taxpayers to save this ideological failure that somehow dragged itself into our century.

To be clear: Australia must not save the UN.

Let it die. Let it rot.

Allow global politics to heal.

Is the UN really going bust?

Back in October of 2025, Secretary-General António Guterres penned letters to member states complaining about ‘the worst cash crisis in nearly a decade’. A month later, just over 70% of nations had coughed up their dues. The United States, which is unfairly carrying the burden of cost, owes something along the lines of $4 billion. President Donald Trump has little interest in giving them another cent. In response to the collapse of finances, the UN has threatened to shut down their headquarters in New York. Given New York is under communist occupation, it’s unlikely to bother anyone of significance.

Unfortunately, the UN still enjoys five-star travel, first-class flights, buildings occupying the most expensive real estate in European cities, and armies of bureaucrats that would make Stalin weep with envy.

This monstrosity is a long way from ‘tightening its belt’ and even further from dying.

It is sending out desperate cries for help to keep the status quo rather than presenting its financers – us – with a slimmed-down program of essential services. At no point has it tried to show us where genuine benefit can be found or assessed itself for situations where it poured a fortune of money into a situation only to make it worse. Despot nations don’t stop their genocides because the UN frowns in their direction. Indeed, we have seen crimes against humanity rewarded with some of the highest positions of power.

As reported by Fox News:

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, told Fox News Digital, ‘The UN elected Beijing’s and Tehran’s loyal agents as “human rights experts” – without a ballot, without shame. These regimes persecute minorities, jail anyone who speaks freely, and rule through fear and censorship. The committee that once drafted the UN’s anti-racism convention has now been captured by those who embody racism, repression, and the silencing of truth. It’s an inversion of human rights – and a stain on the United Nations itself.’

And more to the point, the UN does not believe it did anything wrong. This isn’t even its first moral catastrophe.

Do we need the UN?

If we are going to be completely honest, Australia and all of its Western allies would be significantly better off if the UN were to collapse completely.

Economically, socially, democratically, regionally, militarily – we stand to benefit.

Not only is the UN an expense, it has allowed third-world, communist, and despotic states to band together under the protection of a few like-minded states to wield very real global power they never would have achieved on their own.

Why does Hamas have influence on the streets of Sydney? It is absurd. And yet the thread of causality can be followed straight to the UN’s mass migration demand that forced nations like Australia to open its borders to individuals whose views and loyalty remain seated in foreign regimes that, in their free time, chant ‘death to the West’. And we can’t send them back, even if they swear allegiance to international terror groups or threaten to behead Australians in broad daylight. Far from repenting and offering to help Australia regain control of its national security, the UN actively restricts and obstructs our democratic efforts to protect innocent Australians. This is not okay.

UN rulings, policies, and programs have directly disadvantaged Australia, and we have no ability to stop them.

And contrary to what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in his recent pitch to place Australia on the UN Security Council, Australia has never had less influence as a middle power.

The organisation designed to hold world peace by stopping the influence of socialists, communists, fascists, and criminals has become a proxy for their goals.

China’s complex debt-trapping across the third-world, and other networks of influence, leave many of these nations voting as obedient blocs or the West’s most dangerous economic and cultural advisories. Meanwhile, members of other international alliances – Shanghai Cooperation Organisation etc – have already sworn to defy UN rulings. As some of their members hold veto power at the UN, these orbiting structures that circle the UN override its decisions without anyone noticing.

For example, if a nation decides slavery or child marriage is acceptable in defiance of the UN, the veto nation prevents the UN from acting against it. In return, that nation – almost always despotic – promises the votes and support of nations in other alliances. It’s like a disease holding the world’s tyrannies together that no one wants to talk about because they’re frightened Western power will evaporate if the curtain is pulled away.

Donald Trump has effectively asked why the West pays roughly 80% of the UN’s operational costs for the privilege of losing its strategic grip?

Have human rights advanced as a result of the UN – or does the organisation stand around and watch the Caliphate of Islamic terror creeping through African nations where Christians are tortured and executed?

It is not controversial to say that human rights are declining.

Part of the problem is that the UN spend all their time ‘monitoring’ like they ‘monitored’ the Rwanda genocide. Like they would monitor an attack on Australia or Taiwan. Always monitoring. The UN presents themselves as powerless, passive observers after tugging on all the strings.

When the fluffy language of ‘peace, nature, and aid’ are stripped back to the cold mechanics of the UN, it becomes a despotic, wasteful, dangerous, and bloated machine housing our rivals who watch our collapse while drinking champagne we paid for.

Australia receives no benefit from its membership – only punishment.

And if it were to collapse, every Western ally would find their hold over world power significantly strengthened. Trade, culture, and the threads of the Enlightenment would once again form the spine of power. Influence would hold on its merits, not shadowy backroom handshakes.

As for the money… It is difficult to feel sorry for the UN.

It has not occurred to the UN that the member states it’s trying to fleece might have more money for their bureaucracy if the UN hadn’t forced first-world countries into trillions of dollars of ‘climate expenditure’ which has eaten away their treasuries.

You can have Net Zero or a gravy train. Not both. And the UN might end up being a casualty of its own greedy policies.

Indeed, Trump coyly shrugged, indicating he didn’t know the US had slipped behind on its payments … then questioned if other nations could solve the problem ‘very quickly’ via paying their share. It is the same lesson he dished out to Nato.

It was then that the US Secretary of State, Macro Rubio, cocked an eyebrow and asked, ‘What is the purpose of the UN?’ Bewildered journalists stared back dumbly.

‘The UN is supposed to be a place where you can peaceably resolve global conflict … right now you have [Iran] who unlawfully, criminally, and illegally taking possession of an international waterway.’

Looks like the US might want something tangible for the tens of billions they’ve poured into the UN over the years.

Donald Trump was far harsher a year or so ago when he spoke from their own podium:

‘Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should – too often – it is actually creating new problems for us to solve. The best example is the number one political issue of our time: the crisis of uncontrolled migration. It’s uncontrolled. Your countries are being ruined. The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders.’

And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.

The US has since withdrawn from 31 UN agencies to ‘end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities’.

Australian politicians are still begging at the door, trying to get in.

Something tells me Trump will watch the financial collapse of the UN with a smile and it may go down in history as one of his greatest victories over the undemocratic institutions that have manipulated, impoverished, and damaged Western nations.

They have created a class war between nations and a true global ‘democracy’ free to oppress without the safeguards of a constitution, bill of rights, or benevolent monarch. The UN is merely one of many national ‘collectives’ of negotiating blocs where individual leaders, who often came to power without real elections, shape the future of a world where no citizen has a say over the direction of global politics. In short, terrifying.

What does the UN cost the nations of the world?

Its core bureaucracy operates on a (slimmed down) budget of $3.5 billion while ‘everything with a UN tag on it across the world’ sits between $66-75 billion depending on the year. This is an estimate. The true cost is largely unknown.

Then there is the other question … what costs did the UN’s existence create to domestic budgets?

Those are costs so terrifying and vast, they have settled around Australia like a heavy sea fog clinging to the coast. Since 1950, AI estimates the UN has cost global budgets $150 trillion in UN-inspired projects or direct funds. How much of this money benefitted the taxpayers who had it taken from them? I would go so far as to say the UN is the chief culprit in Australia’s present state of economic anguish. It is certainly the reason our business landscape was torn apart during Covid hysteria and our rainforests are being blown up for wind turbines and solar panels.

Generations of Prime Ministers were either scammed, pressured, enticed, lured, or tricked into adopting UN policy goals that have thoroughly screwed Australia.

Worse? They’re not even sorry about it.

Too many of these political leaders continue to protect the UN as some international moral touchstone and would throw money at its collapsing infrastructure knowing full well that cash forms a slush fund for despots, dictators, and terrorists in the third-world.

As we speak, Western money – in the billions – is being poured into Islamic terror states or regions under occupation. Afghanistan, under control of the Taliban, not only receives humanitarian aid while it abuses women and girls with ever more disgusting policies, Azerbaijan invited a Taliban contingent to COP26, COP27, COP28, and COP29 to hunt around for hundreds of millions in ‘climate finance’. In Gaza, UN-branded aid workers were confirmed as either taking part or assisting in hostage-taking and terror activities while unknown amounts of aid either kept terrorists alive or helped furnish their armouries. Yemen, Syria, and Iran all have similar problems with 80-90% of aid hitting the bank accounts of terrorists.

These regimes are effectively farming their own people for poverty to cash in on Western aid. They have no incentive to fix their countries. Indeed, the UN actively encourages them to make the situation worse.

Politicians with an ideological commitment to multilateralism wrap the UN in virtue to protect a narrative of global governance that is just as fake and cynical as the climate apocalypse.

They will stand before voters and preach ‘world peace’ while money they donate from the Treasury lines some violent thug’s palace with gold and our own citizens sleep on the street.

Australian taxpayers subsidise foreign terrorists while hosting Royal Commissions into terrorist acts that are themselves prevented from reaching the truth by the UN ‘social cohesion’ guidelines that ensure people remain peaceful while they are picked off by ‘lone wolves’ with ‘no motive’. Many of these politicians expect to exit politics and personally benefit from the UN platter of job offers. Protecting the UN is in personal interest – a paddock where politicians graze for a few years to fatten their bank balances.

The hypocrisy of the UN goes on… At the height of the ‘climate panic’, reports released showed UN officials spending tens of millions flying around the world first class while staying in five-star hotels. Employees and bureaucrats were living the high life on money that was meant to be spent on ‘world peace’.

In 2017, it was even reported that World Health Organisation staff broke the rules with their combined travel costs exceeding some of their disease budgets. In another corner of the UN, one former head spent half a million on travel.

As always, the people most concerned about the ‘climate crisis’ are least concerned about their so-called ‘carbon footprint’. It’s no wonder no one says anything about the superyachts or private jets arriving for conferences. This behaviour has been normalised.

When the UN Secretary-General says, ‘We simply must find a lasting solution for recurring liquidity problems!’

My reply would be: ‘Shut it down – forever. Problem solved.’

/4 Comments/by

Saving the Planet or Destroying It? The Ugly Truth

,

While I agree that protecting our natural environment is a duty of government, I completely disagree with Senator Pocock’s definition of “protection.” The rush toward net zero is not saving our environment; it’s state-sponsored vandalism.

Here is the reality of what net zero is doing to Australia:

✖️ Creating unmanaged havens for pests that will devastate native flora and fauna while destroying food production because of “carbon-dioxide
farming.”

✖️ 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests will be required to be cleared for wind turbines, 1.25 billion solar panels installed and the carving out of 20,000 kilometres of 75-metre-wide transmission easements through national forests.

✖️ Transmission line costs have blown out from an initial $8.5 billion estimate to upwards of $120 billion, and likely over $200 billion. When you add the generators, the total net zero cost sits at around $350 billion. Financed with high-cost loans over 35 years, this will ultimately burden taxpayers with a bill exceeding $1 trillion.

I have stood in these forests myself. I have seen developers blowing the tops off mountains to install massive concrete turbine bases. Offshore wind is no better. Data shows these marine turbines slow the wind, trap heat at the sea surface, disrupt marine life (including whales) with sediment and noise, shed microplastics and kill birds.

It’s not possible for anyone to look at Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful? No, it’s not. It’s vandalism.

We cannot put the tops back on the mountains that have been destroyed by this insanity.

This is literally killing the environment to save it.

One Nation will protect our beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism.

One Nation is the true party of the environment.

Transcript

One Nation agrees with Senator Pocock that protection of the natural environment is a fundamental duty of any government. I do, though, disagree with Senator Pocock on the definition of environmental protection. ABARES executive director Dr Jared Greenville said last December that research indicates that projected land-based carbon sequestration goals for our net zero transition will require sequestration projects across 18 million hectares by 2050. While some of this land is co-used, agricultural land locked up for carbon credits is not environmental land. Inevitably it becomes a refuge for pests which infect local farms and devastate native fauna and flora. Carbon dioxide farming is the enemy of the natural environment and the enemy of food production. 

Add to this total the 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests which are being clear felled for the construction of wind turbines and access roads, plus the land for the 1.25 billion solar panels needed to reach net zero—that’s billion with a ‘b’. Then add the 20,000 kilometres of new transmission lines necessary to take power from where it is being generated to where it is needed. Each transition line runs through an easement, usually 75 metres wide, of clear felled land. In 2020 the AEMO cost estimate for most of the transmission line projects was $8.5 billion. Now the transmission line cost is estimated to be at least $120 billion and is more likely to blow out beyond $200 billion. Add another $160 billion for wind and solar generators and we have a $350 billion net zero cost being financed with high-cost loans, which in turn blows out the total 35-year outlay to above $1 trillion. 

For environmentally destructive projects like Snowy 2 and for most of the wind projects in North Queensland, those transmission easements run through forests of national significance. I’ve been there, in the very forests this motion is calling to protect. They’re the same projects in which so-called green environmentalists are installing wind turbines and blowing the tops off mountains to make space for the huge concrete bases of massive wind turbines. 

Here’s what I don’t understand. Here’s a sensible motion about the need to protect our beautiful environment, yet the motion ignores the massive environmental damage from net zero measures. How can anyone look at one of Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful. No, it’s not. It’s vandalism. This is not just happening on land. Offshore wind turbines harm the environment. A new study in Science Advances shows that offshore wind turbines actually warm the sea surface. Turbines slow the wind. This weakens mixing, shuts down upwelling and in turn traps heat at the surface. This changes the microclimate for more than 10 kilometres behind and stirs up sediment which interferes with marine life, including whales. Add this to bird kills, underwater noise and microplastic shedding and the picture is clear: offshore wind isn’t solving an environmental problem; it’s creating one. This does not even take into account the environmental cost of manufacture, transport, insulation, maintenance, decommissioning, disposal and remediation of massive wind turbines. 

One Nation will care for the natural environment. We will ensure that the land is in the hands of the best stewards: farmers. We will cancel the entire project and protect those beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism, returning land, where possible, to its best use, be that farming or native forests. Unfortunately, we can’t put the tops back on mountains. That damage is there for eternity—a testament to hubris and the tragedy of the paradox of virtue. It’s the killing of the environment in the name of saving the environment. One Nation is now the party of the environment.  

/3 Comments/by

Scrap Net-Zero, Not Health Rebates

, , ,

One Nation strongly opposes the Albanese government’s plan to remove the private health insurance rebate for older Australians (65+).

Removing these rebates will ultimately cost taxpayers billions more than it will save and will put immense strain on the public hospital system.

One Nation rejects the government’s “intergenerational fairness” narrative. It is nothing more than a diversion.

The true causes of financial hardship for Australian people are immigration, net-zero policies, inflation and high living costs.

Rather than cutting health rebates for the elderly, we should stop mass migration and abandon all net-zero targets, which will help ALL Australians.

Transcript

I thank Senator Ruston for this motion, which One Nation supports. Currently, all Australians get a rebate on their contributions to private health insurance. For the people under 65, it is 24.1 per cent, for those 65-69 years of age it is 28.1 per cent and for those over 70 it is 32.2 per cent. These are adjusted for income. Minister Butler described the system as ‘not fair between generations’. The government has announced the additional amount paid to our elderly will be removed, making everyone equal. How very communist and how self-defeating. The rebate is higher the older you get, because the cost to the taxpayer of a person moving from private to public care is higher the older they get. The extra payment encourages older Australians to stay in the private health system and save the taxpayers from having to carry the full cost of their health care. 

Across forward estimates, this measure will cost taxpayers—including young people—billions more than it saves, and it will put more pressure on public hospitals already dealing with bed block and long waiting times. Our young people will not always be young. A measure that helps more than three million older Australians today will help younger Australians tomorrow. 

The Albanese government is promoting division in order to set one age group against another. How dishonest! Classic communism! This is the politics of envy, designed to cover up the real reasons young people are struggling, which are immigration, net zero, grocery prices, energy prices, inflation—destroying industry, making lives harder and robbing our young of the opportunity to own their own homes, to enjoy the life that my generation enjoys. To pitch to younger voters, start there. Introduce negative immigration until housing and infrastructure catches up, reducing house prices. Terminate this net zero madness and let business get on with creating breadwinner jobs that provide a future for our young. 

Intergenerational wealth transfer is a term that is a furphy, a lie, a dishonest diversion. Labor is crippling the young. In reality, this is an excuse from Labor to increase taxes on people with assets who, after a lifetime of work, are the older generations. Remember, today’s young adults are the future older people. This aims to hit all Australians, including the young. You will eventually get hit. This is a lie that is masquerading to steal more taxes. One Nation will unwind this petty, dishonest, counterproductive measure. We are one nation, one community and One Nation will not set one Australian against another.  

/2 Comments/by

The Monstrous Reach of the Paris Agreement

,
No, Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan, it is not just ‘a piece of paper’.

We’ve heard it before. A cataclysmic policy or international agreement disguised as performative, symbolic, or ‘a piece of paper’.

Anthony Albanese used this underhanded trick during the Voice to Parliament when he claimed the Uluru Statement from the Heart was ‘on an A4 bit of paper – that’s it!’ as if the Prime Minister had somehow forgotten the legislative burden of a parallel race-based Parliament and its entourage of discriminatory instructions, untold billions of cost, and the destruction of ‘equal citizenship’ – forever. To call it ‘a bit of paper’ was a lie.

This point does not need to be laboured. State-based Treaties enacted in defiance of the referendum result have demonstrated the true civic and economic cost.

Which brings us to an even more egregious violation of the truth – this time from the Coalition’s leadership team of Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan.

On a special episode of Sky News Australia, Taylor was asked by a voter (Brett) why the Coalition doesn’t get out of the Paris Agreement if they are serious about ending the Net Zero agenda.

‘We will get rid of Net Zero – we are not proposing to get out of the Paris Agreement because, frankly, it’s not going to change anything we do.’

When One Nation National Executive Director Lee Hanson asked Nationals Leader Matt Canavan to ‘please explain’, he said:

‘Net Zero is not in the Paris Agreement at all. We signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Net Zero didn’t come along until years later … it’s just a piece of paper.’

Significantly worse, when pressed again by Andrew Bolt, Canavan added:

‘We don’t have time for side quests … we don’t have time for symbolic gestures … keep in mind, it’s very important to make the point that Net Zero is not enshrined in the Paris Agreement.’

Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…

There are slight variations in wording, so let us look at the definition of ‘Net Zero’ as laid out in the IPCC glossary:

Unless Taylor and Canavan wish to challenge the IPCC and our international partners on the definition of Net Zero, let us put to rest the misleading idea that it does not appear in the Paris Agreement.

It does.

According to Onassis, Farhana Yamin is credited with ‘getting the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050 into the 2015 Paris Agreement’ and was a key IPCC architect. She later joined Extinction Rebellion. Even Wikipedia says, ‘Net Zero was basic to the goals of the Paris Agreement’ with the IPCC’s follow-up to Paris, the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5*C, popularising Net Zero as a short-hand for the phrase already used in the original document.

This is not in dispute by anyone except, perhaps, the Coalition, who are afraid that admitting the Paris Agreement’s role in tying Australia to Net Zero weakens their political chances against One Nation.

As Canavan rightly said on First Edition eight months ago, ‘I think we should sort this issue out – that would be ideal. I think we should have a debate in the joint party room about our position on Net Zero emissions. The Liberal and National party room has never debated Net Zero emissions despite it being perhaps the most radical socialist plan ever envisioned for the Australian economy.’

If they wish to be honest with the Australian people, whose trust they are attempting to rebuild, they might try admitting that the Paris Agreement exists to codify and coerce the global acceptance of Net Zero into domestic legislation.

And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.

Far from being ‘symbolic’ or ‘just a piece of paper’, its reach extends so deep into our Treasury and economic system that the Coalition simply lacks the moral fortitude and political ability to claw back control of our energy system and sovereignty.

Paris is not ‘a gesture’, it is the scaffolding that keeps a near-unknowable compliance cost hanging over the Treasury. The Coalition cannot meet its promise to end Net Zero without pulling out of Paris, and it is our opinion that they know this.

The sheer economic burden of ‘Paris’ is the largest silent line item in the Budget, and that does not include the stealth tax it takes from businesses and private citizens as a ‘green cost’ on power bills, additional requirements, or straight-out costs.

What is the Paris Agreement?

It is a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 195 parties at the United Nations Climate Conference (Cop21) in Paris, 2015. According to its official webpage, it requires economic and social transformation which works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. This includes a pledge to reduce ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ regarding greenhouse emissions, and to report on them. Developed nations are ‘encouraged’ to – and do – provide ‘climate finance’ to developing nations. It ‘encourages’ the uptake of green technologies.

Australia then went ahead and formalised this. The Paris Agreement is responsible, directly, and continues to underpin many things, including…

The Climate Change Act 2022, which legislates reduction targets and Net Zero goals. This document holds us, legally, to the Paris Agreement’s statements. This alone includes tens of billions in climate money and references Powering Australia, Rewiring the Nation, and Household Energy Upgrade Fund along with the Powering the Regions Fund, Hydrogen Headstart Program, National Reconstruction Fund, National Electric Vehicle Strategy, Critical Minerals Strategy, APS Net Zero 2030, National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy, Disaster Ready Fund, Australia’s Strategy for Nation, Australian Carbon Credit Units, Safeguard Mechanism, Australian Sustainable Finance Strategy (Sovereign Green Bonds), Net Zero Economy Authority, and the Native Positive Plan. Net Zero Authority which was setup ‘to promote the orderly and positive economic transformation associated with achieving Net Zero emissions’ and its Net Zero Economy Agency and Advisory Board.

And then we have an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of government agencies involved with/tied to the Paris Agreement: Department of Climate Change, AEMO, Clean Energy Regulator, Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Clean Energy Innovation Fund, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, The Climate Change Authority, BOM, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – Net Zero Agency.

A hell of a lot of ‘symbolic gestures’, I think you’d agree.

And this does not include any of the state initiatives, the reporting structures, the additional international agreements attached to Paris, or any of the small legal requirements placed upon business.

As I am certain Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan are aware, ‘pulling out of Paris’ means admitting to the extent of its influence.

This is not a piece of paper that can be torn up. Nor is our greatest concern, as Canavan suggested, ‘creating international tension’.

‘We shouldn’t just go around ripping up international agreements for no benefit to our own country … all it would do is create friction with other countries.’ – Canavan

The truth is – no one knows how much the Paris Agreement has cost this country.

There is no ledger or register, and certainly no way of assessing the loss of income and rise of costs due to the influence of Paris on our energy, infrastructure, mining, transport, agriculture, and private sectors.

The taxpayer cost since the Paris Agreement was signed sits at more than $100 billion with the total cost to the public and private sector expected to top $1 trillion by 2050.

An expensive bit of paper…

This is only an estimate assuming the industrial projects succeed. The cost blow-out of Snowy 2.0 and litany of failed or abandoned green projects (such as the Sun Cable), show how easy it is for a Budget to understate the true delivered cost.

And we should note, none of these costings include the replacement of short-lived renewable energy or the recycling/disposal cost. Both of which are assumed to be huge. Nor does it take into account the additional costs of things like … upgrading the entire continent for EV chargers and all the infrastructure that goes along with it or paying out the countless Indigenous land claims that might take place along the regional routes of energy networks.

Despite living in an acute financial crisis with Australians facing homelessness or levels of poverty not seen since their great-grandparents, the Paris Agreement – through our domestic legislation – compels us to gift billions of dollars in ‘climate aid’ to developing nations. We cannot afford this and the only reason we do it is a piece of paper. Australia is giving billions of dollars to the Pacific for a climate crisis that does not exist while the same nations take money from China, the world’s largest polluter, in exchange for resources and military perks. At least Beijing gets something meaningful in return.

These foreign aid groups tied to Paris include, Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership, REnew Pacific, Pacific Resilience Facility, Australian Humanitarian Partnership Disaster READY Program, Climate and Oceans Support Program in the Pacific, Weather Ready Pacific, Pacific Insurance and Climate Adaptation Programme, Climate Finance Access Network, Kiwa Initiative, Pacific Blue Carbon Program, Governance for Resilient Development, SPREP Core Funding, and whatever that AFL team and stadium come under…

This takes place while Australian farmers cannot secure insurance for flood or fire, are stuck with dirt roads and sub-quality energy, and cannot build something as simple as a dam or fence without excessive interference and added costs.

And yet we gift these things – and more – to other nations with the money our poor farmers give to the Treasury.

It’s easy to see why Donald Trump made pulling out of Paris a priority. The US received no punishment for doing so and has enjoyed a significant trade and economic boom since. They have already saved billions while not receiving any tariffs or sanctions. The worst you could say is they lost the prestige of ‘climate leadership’ but with the world’s worst emitter – China – crowned as a leader, who wants that title?

Why pull out of Paris? Why indeed.

‘I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off. The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.’ – Trump

Don’t worry. Shortly after ditching ‘Net Zero 2050’, the Coalition are now getting rid of ‘Net Zero’ entirely without unpicking any of the Net Zero infrastructure and still reporting this non-change in line with the Paris agreement.

At this point, the Coalition appear to be climate cult alcoholics, pledging to attend AA meetings to keep the voters happy and then catching up at the pub. That’s okay, because they’re in the meetings. The pub is ‘just a place’. It doesn’t mean anything. Some people don’t drink at the pub. Refusing to pull out of Paris is a failure of grand old Australian tradition of the ‘Pub Test’.

This week, we have watched the Coalition rightly mock the Prime Minister for ‘changing his position’ on tax policy within the Budget – and yet how is this different to Canavan’s statements?

On June 14, Canavan posted the result of a vote from the NSW Young National Metropolitan Branch that read:

57 Paris Agreement

That Conference call on The Nationals to advocate for the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to: a) restore national control over emissions targets and energy policy, and; b) ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, food, and manufactured goods for the Australian people.

Canavan’s post discussed Net Zero and Paris as if they were intrinsically linked.

In a Courier Mail article where Canavan admits ‘we never conducted a full cost-benefit analysis of adopting Net Zero’ he adds ‘Trump is at least doing what he says and has pulled out of the Paris Agreement’.

In a post from 2025, Canavan said to a man who runs a food distribution company, ‘Hopefully he encourages more business people to say what they really think, including if they think we should get out of the Paris Agreement SCAM.’

Is it a piece of paper or a scam?

‘Australia should leave the Paris Agreement. Ever since we signed up to Net Zero, we have had soaring prices, skyrocketing interest rates, and witnessed most other nations completely ignoring their commitments.’

Perhaps we should finish with Canavan’s words.

‘Now that the world’s biggest economy [the US] has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, it is just common sense – and a matter of time – that everyone else does too.’ And ‘There is no reason Australia should remain in Paris when China, India, Indonesia, and now the US, are not.’

Quite so, Matt, we completely agree.

It is a shame you ‘changed your position’ after moving from a spirited backbencher to co-leader in an opposition dominated by the Liberal Moderates who have made their commitment to both Net Zero and the Paris Agreement quite clear.

We cannot know if this is a genuine change of heart or a political concession to a Coalition partner hunting down Teal seats at the expense of the nation. (A doomed and dishonest venture by the Moderates who will never win back Blue Ribbon seats while misleading the taxpayer about Climate Change politics.)

However, it seems obvious a Coalition government, without One Nation to keep it honest, has no intention of ending Net Zero – not in the legislative ways that matter.

/3 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

The Forgotten Australians

,

Labor and the Liberals have abandoned their founding visions.

Today’s modern Labor Party has traded its commitment to the working class and the family for radical gender ideology, social engineering and control over children, undermining parental rights and effectively claiming ownership of our children.

And the Liberal Party has abandoned the middle class to serve wealthy corporate “puppet-masters” and big-money interests.

There is a stark divide between corporate success and the struggle of everyday Australians.

Data shows corporate profits have soared while the share of GDP going to wages has plummeted.

Real wages have stagnated since 1980, while the costs of education, healthcare, and housing have increased by 300% to 400%.

The “net zero” transition is causing skyrocketing power bills and economic suicide.

One Nation is the only party capable of restoring Australia’s prosperity.

Our plan includes: ▶️ Slashing government spending by at least $90 billion a year. ▶️ Putting $30 billion back into the pockets of Australians. ▶️ Investing $20 billion annually in wealth-growing projects.

One Nation calls for a return to patriotism, family values and economic fairness for the often “forgotten” middle and working class Aussies.

Transcript

Tonight I deliver One Nation’s eulogy for the status quo that had dominated Australian politics since 1949 and that passed away during the break. 1949 was the year Labor prime minister Ben Chifley delivered the famous ‘Light on the hill’ speech and Robert Menzies was elected as the first Liberal Party prime minister. Both were men of vision, both had the courage of their convictions and both were driven by a deep love for our beautiful country. This may cause offence amongst the 2026 rabble pretending to still be Labor, yet I must point out the ‘light on the hill’ metaphor Ben Chifley used as a regular churchgoer is almost a direct quote from the Gospel of Matthew 5:13-16. This is the famous ‘salt and light’ passage from Jesus’s ‘Sermon on the mount’, where he said inter alia: ‘You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel but on a candlestick, and it gives light to all that are in the house.’ And it’s true that Chifley’s speech was rooted in the trauma of the Great Depression, with this line: If the movement can make someone more comfortable, give to some father or mother a greater feeling of security for their children, a feeling that if a depression comes there will be work, that the government is striving its hardest to do its best, then the Labor movement will be completely justified.  

How times have changed. The Labor Party now refuses to even say ‘mother’ or ‘father’, let alone build them into their policies. Indeed, Labor ministers refuse to define what a woman is. Today’s Labor Party uses gender ideology to subvert the concept of man and woman. It refuses to back families as the fundamental building block of society. It undermines family. To those on the government benches, ‘uterus owners’ and ‘prostate owners’ now stand as references to women and men, with ‘birthing parents’ and ‘ejaculators’ serving as references to mothers and fathers.  

The Labor Party has used transgenderism to establish the principle that the state owns your child, and refusing the state’s instruction to transition your child will result in the termination of parental rights. Parents should understand that children are no longer, as Ben Chifley said, theirs; rather, they are the state’s. Last week Jacinta Allan, the Premier of Victoria, confirmed this new Labor principle in the extraordinary defence of child castration, which she still insists on calling ‘gender-affirming care’.  

Mass immigration eliminated job security for most unionists and forced unions to become more and more militant in response to the cost of economic growth. We stopped building wealth. Instead, the fight is over a greater share of the same pie, an inevitably futile task. It’s a game the wealthy have won and the working class have lost, because the Labor Party falsely pretends that it’s in the worker’s corner when it’s not. Corporate profits as a share of gross domestic product have risen from 17 per cent in 1975 to 65 per cent in 2020. The share of gross domestic product for wages and salaries has fallen from 25 per cent in 1975 to 17 per cent today. Corporate profits keep going up. The income share of the middle class, who are still paying everyone’s social security, just keeps going down.  

It’s impossible to look at this data and see a pattern which apportions blame only to the Liberal Party’s periods in office. Both parties are to blame and equally so. The status quo has done over Australian workers, and the polling for One Nation clearly shows workers, tradies and small business are sick of it. Ben Chifley spoke of comfort as a core Labor Party value, and I ask Australia’s working class: where’s your comfort? You’re not only being attacked as colonisers and being degendered and disrespected in Labor’s social policy; your financial position has gone backwards.  

The cronyism and corruption inherent in the net zero transition—the lie—designed as it is to subvert energy generation to the weather, has run riot and rampant through the economy. Business insolvencies are at a record high. Householders are terrified of opening their power bills, and bills are set to rise at five times the inflation rate this financial year, as the cynical energy subsidies the Albanese Labor Government uses to bribe voters and cover up the problem are removed to reduce Labor’s growing budget deficit. Inflation is out of control because of that deficit. And yet you’re responsible for the deficit and the inflation which has resulted from your bribes, dishonesty and pathetic financial mismanagement. It’s taken 75 years for the inspirational vision reflected in the ‘Light on the hill’—a vision of family, comfort and, yes, happiness—to degenerate into an imbroglio of self-interest, moral degeneracy, cronyism, cynicism and, in places, outright corruption. The status quo died because it failed Australia’s working class. It’s no accident that, in the latest polls, people earning over $100,000 a year still support Labor ahead of anyone else. Labor’s new culture of social engineering and division on ethnic grounds has support from those whose incomes insulate them from the damage these policies are doing. Indeed, this moral virtue signalling has replaced the light on the hill. Sit tibi terra levis: may the earth be light to you.  

The Liberal Party is as culpable in this attack on the middle class. In Menzies’s speech—which, to give it its correct title, was the ‘Forgotten people’ speech—he spoke of ‘salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on’. He said: These are, in the political and economic sense, the middle class. They are for the most part unorganized and unselfconscious. They are envied by those whose social benefits are largely obtained by taxing them. They are not rich enough to have individual power. They are taken for granted by each political party in turn. Menzies’s success was to put the middle class at the fore, recognising that a strong middle class would power the economy and provide a tax base for those who were not able to provide for themselves. His words in 1944 took him into government in 1949, and he went on to become Australia’s longest-serving prime minister for 18 years.  

That was then. The year is not 1949; it’s now 2026, and the modern Liberals no longer owe their allegiance to the middle class. Instead, they owe their allegiance to the wealthy interests who pay the bills and set the agenda. Those rivers of gold have enabled the Liberals to outspend the Labor Party during every election cycle since 2007. The Liberal Party puppetmasters are prepared to surrender the country to the Labor Party rather than see opposition leader Peter Dutton—someone who was asking for a modicum of independence and was eliminated. Those same forces are now defending their latest marionette, an opposition leader who’s so weak that one has to ask: just how much are these people paying?  

One Nation has no puppetmasters. We offer government decision-making based on facts and data, applying principles of fairness and patriotism. I will return to One Nation’s plan for the post-status quo Australia in a moment. Menzies was again correct when he said: The communist has always hated what he calls the “bourgeoisie”, because he sees clearly the existence of one has kept British countries from revolution, while the substantial absence of one in feudal France at the end of the eighteenth century and in Tsarist Russia at the end of the last war made revolution easy and indeed inevitable. What he did not realise is that the modern Liberal Party and the modern Labor Party are acting in unison to destroy the middle class, albeit for different reasons.  

The Liberals want more money for their corporate owners, who do not understand the meaning of a fair share for all. Labor wants to bring about a revolution in society to mirror their Prime Minister’s communist ideology, which is destroying the pillars of Australian society: family and the middle class. Not surprisingly, then, the middle class is shrinking, even as the overall share of wages and salaries in the economy is shrinking. Australia’s median wage has gone backwards by eight per cent under this Labor government, although this is not just on them. Since 1980, the median Australian wage in real terms, adjusted for inflation, has not increased. Nothing. Zero. In that same time, education expenses have gone up 300 per cent, health care up 300 per cent and housing up 400 per cent. If it feels like you’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because you are. The Liberal-Labor status quo has screwed Australia rotten.  

One Nation support has grown rapidly in the last eight months, which is proof that courage is contagious. For 30 years, One Nation has been confined to a cage built to contain our threat to the status quo, a cage that was plastered with a huge sign falsely declaring the contents racist. And, for 30 years, the narrative was successfully maintained because a host of dishonest, self-interested politicians, media and talking heads all benefited financially from maintaining the status quo.  

One Nation will return $30 billion a year into the pockets of everyday Australians. We will shrink the government to fit the Constitution, reducing government spending by $90 billion a year and putting the budget into surplus in our first year. We will invest $20 billion a year in infrastructure, which the private sector will legally match, to build projects that grow wealth for everyday Australians, not foreign corporate profits. We’ve showcased these. These fully costed plans were taken to the electorate last May. We have the details. We know how we will do this, and we know that it can be done. The Australian people have clearly decided it’s time to ignore the insults and instead vote with their heads and with their hearts. Australians want our country back. One Nation is the only party that can achieve that and, indeed, the only party that wants to achieve that. 

/6 Comments/by

Is Your HiLux Next?

,

I raised the issue of the new “baby” Land Cruiser FJ – a vehicle Australians would love. It’s compact, attractive, and fits our lifestyle. Yet, we are hearing that it won’t be coming to Australia because it can’t meet the new emissions regulations.

The government promised “more choice” and instead, we are seeing the death of the affordable petrol and diesel vehicles people actually want. If they’ve already killed the baby Land Cruiser, surely the HiLux is next on the chopping block.

I also questioned the department regarding BYD and the way these “credits” are being handed out. It’s a disgrace!

The department confirmed that a company like BYD gets credits just for putting a vehicle on the Register of Approved Vehicles, not for actually selling it to a customer. They can park these cars in a warehouse, collect thousands of dollars in credits per vehicle (over $7,000 for a Sealion 7) and then sell those credits to other carmakers who produce “normal” cars.

I asked directly if the department is concerned that this policy is funnelling money into corporations controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. They admitted this hasn’t been raised with the Minister.

The department claims they might look at changing the scheme to a “point-of-sale” trigger in a 2026 review, however for now, the system is wide open for exploitation.

This is what happens when you build a system based on global targets instead of the actual needs of the Australian people. It robs citizens of affordable, reliable transport while enriching foreign entities.

My position on this remains clear: the government’s New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) is strangling the choices available to everyday Australians.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’d like to take up the new ‘baby’ Land Cruiser.

CHAIR: I hear it’s not coming to Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. It’s a very attractive vehicle. It’s the size of a Suzuki Jimny. It would be very popular. Toyota knows it would be wildly popular, but it says, according to an article:

…the ‘Baby’ Land Cruiser FJ won’t make it to Australia in its current guise because its engine—shared with the HiLux—can’t meet upcoming emissions regulations, which may also see it dumped from the ute range.

When the government introduced the standard, you said it would give Australians more choice. Yet we have an example already of it meaning less choice for Australians. You’ve already killed the baby Land Cruiser. You’re going to kill the HiLux next with these standards. When are you going to admit the new vehicle efficiency standard is taking choices away from Australians who want to drive a normal, affordable petrol or diesel vehicle?

Mr Kathage: Can I just check, Senator. It may be that you’re referring to the noxious emissions standards Euro 6, rather than the new vehicle efficiency standard.

Senator ROBERTS: The NVES.

Mr Kathage: I’m not aware of those reports. I do understand that there’s been a reclassification of Toyota vehicles to meet the heavy-vehicle noxious emissions standard rather than the light-vehicle noxious emissions standard.

Senator ROBERTS: No. That’s just what’s been reported.

Senator O’SULLIVAN: If it helps, Senator Roberts, this is a new vehicle that Toyota have released, and my understanding is it will only be released in Japan. It’s a vehicle that would be highly sought after in Australia, but Toyota have said that, due to the NVES, it doesn’t fit their overall fleet requirements to be able to import them into Australia.

Mr Betts: The NVES doesn’t work on an individual vehicle level. It works across—

Senator O’SULLIVAN: As I’ve said, it’s across their fleet.

Mr Betts: Yes. So let’s look at what’s changed in the Australian market since the NVES hit the statute book. The number of brands on sale in Australia was 56 at the end of 2024; it’s now 65. It was 390 models; it’s 420 models now. The price increase of vehicles is below the rate of inflation; in other words, car prices generally have fallen in real terms. So there’s no evidence that there is a systemic diminution in customer choice or an increase in prices—as we forecast on the basis of experience in other jurisdictions.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, here’s one that’s not coming. On the new vehicle efficiency standard, you’d be aware of reporting by the Financial Review—you may have touched on some of this earlier on—from 2 November that BYD has imported far more vehicles than it has sold in Australia. Has that been raised today?

CHAIR: We have touched on that today.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it accurate that BYD receives those credits for electric vehicles under the scheme just for importing them? Do they get them just for importing a vehicle, rather than selling it?

Mr Kathage: I can answer that, Senator, if you like. Vehicles are counted in the scheme when they’re added to the Register of Approved Vehicles. That occurs during a calendar year. The interim emissions value, which is when units and other effects might occur, is actually issued on 1 February the year after. So vehicle suppliers put something on the Register of Approved Vehicles, there’s a period of time and then, at the start of the next year, effectively, the interim emissions value is issued, and credits are issued shortly after that.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s for bringing it in and putting it on the register as being here, not for selling it?

Mr Kathage: That’s correct, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your succinctness. So, even if BYD don’t go on to sell those vehicles, they still get credits and then they can sell them on to another carmaker who makes normal petrol and diesel cars? They can sell the credits?

Mr Kathage: BYD can import vehicles and put them on the RAV, and then, once the IEV is issued the next year, they can then deal with those units in whatever way they want. The previous evidence we’d supplied is that it does seem the case that BYD has orders that it needs to fulfil. They’ve indicated publicly that there’s been a delay in them being able to fulfil those orders, and their warehousing strategy is a matter for them.

Senator ROBERTS: The warehousing strategy is a what?

Ms Stagg: A matter for them.

Senator ROBERTS: Reporting the money going from the government to them is a matter for us. Reporting indicated that BYD would earn $7,050 in credits for one of its Sealion 7 vehicles, for example. Can you confirm how many credits in total have been issued to BYD under the new vehicle efficiency standard?

Ms Stagg: No units have been issued. As Mr Kathage explained, that will occur on 1 February and will take into account the entire fleet from the OEM for the period 1 July to 31 December 2025.

Senator ROBERTS: I have a few short questions on structure. Are you aware of the ownership structure of BYD?

Mr Kathage: Not personally.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department raised any issues with the minister about their policy leading to the enrichment of Communist China controlled corporations? That’s what you’re doing by giving them these credits. They’re connected to the Chinese Communist Party.

Ms Purvis-Smith: No, we’ve not raised that.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department done any work on changing to a point-of-sale trigger for the scheme, rather than an import trigger?

Mr Kathage: That’s something that we’re looking at. As the minister indicated in her second reading speech on the bill, that is a matter that the government will consider as part of the 2026 review. We’ve done some preliminary looking at the benefits and costs of doing so. We sort of touched on this a little earlier, but there are lots of questions that we need to resolve in relation to whether that would be a good idea based on implementation challenges.

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a lot of complexity when we introduce anything new that is not based upon people’s needs but rather on arbitrary or international targets or something like that. That’s what seems to be the issue here.

Mr Betts: That’s a statement. Mr Kathage indicated the legislation will be subject to review in 2026.

/by