Let’s talk about the EU-Australia Free Trade Agreement. One Nation supports fair trade, not free trade. This agreement is a sellout driven by globalists in Labor, the Greens, and the Teals.
This Agreement “sneaks” in powers over climate, gender, and social policy, bypassing our Constitution and giving foreign, “woke” NGOs (like George Soros’s Open Society Foundations) power to monitor Australian businesses.
It wipes out $1.5 billion in Australian tariffs, lets foreign companies bid on equal terms for government contracts and bans our producers from using traditional names like “feta.”
It also targets essential diesel fuel refunds for farmers and miners, mislabelling them as “subsidies.”
While Labor keeps the public in the dark about the details of this deal, One Nation’s stance is clear: Australians must decide our own future.
We need to exit foreign agreements like UN Net Zero and the Paris Accord, cut the fuel excise in half, impose a royalty on gas exports and protect our local industries.
Transcript
We’re living rent free in the Labor Party’s head. All you can hear from the Labor Party is, ‘One Nation this, One Nation that,’ because they lost voters to One Nation in the South Australian election.
Getting back to the topic, the EU has published the European side of the free trade agreement between Europe and Australia. One Nation does not support free trade; we support fair trade. Past agreements make us right because they’re hurting Australia. This agreement still must go before the joint standing committee on trade and tariffs and then the parliament. Given Labor, teals and Greens are full of globalists, I’m certain it will pass after a period of theatre to pretend it’s being scrutinised when it is not. Scrutiny is important.
This agreement creates a raft of new measures around sustainable development, gender equality—what’s that got to do with a trade agreement? We get woke, they get cheap products—environmental and climate matters, and responsible business conduct. Including these in this agreement means the federal government is giving itself powers it has never had before and which are effectively an end run around our Constitution. They want to get around our Constitution. The agreement also offers civil society organisation an active role to monitor the implementation of the entire agreement, opening up scrutiny of the Australian government and Australian companies to people like George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Wow.
The agreement will remove almost all Australian tariffs on European Union products, at a cost of $1.5 billion. In return, the EU is scrapping tariffs on some Australian goods, value unknown. We hear the Labor party extolling the virtues of this agreement, yet they won’t tell us the details. Australia will allow European Union companies to tender on an equal footing with local companies for contracts with 60 government entities. Equal footing with Australian companies? Come on! To Labor, an Australian does not deserve any special treatment over a European. Good to know.
The agreement regulates Australian producers’ ability to use the real names of 300 products, including feta cheese, which can still be called feta if the Australian producer has been calling it feta for five years; otherwise they have to change the name. The public are going to be so confused. Some feta will be feta; other feta won’t be feta.
From the agreement:
The EU and Australia recognise that certain subsidies may distort the proper functioning of markets and to that end agreed that in principle no subsidies that negatively affect competition or trade should be granted.
They’re talking about the refund farmers and miners get on the road tax components of their diesel machines where these machines are not used driving on roads; they are used outside of that. This includes tractors, cool rooms, milking machines and so on. These are not subsidies; they’re refunds.
This agreement gives the government huge new powers, sells out the bush, allows woke organisations powers over the Australian government and corporations and creates a whole new world of woke governance. Will it make the lives of everyday Australians better? No, of course not. The Labor party do not cover for you; they govern for woke foreign agendas.
I want to make a few more points. The European Union commissioner was here to sell the free trade agreement just two days ago. She’s here to sell it, but we still don’t know the details, because the Labor Party is excluding them from public reach. Why? Because the government won’t release the detail.
By the way, people may not know that the same minister for Labor pushing this free trade agreement is pushing something else. He’s pushing an extra 45 federal politicians at taxpayer expense. Expand the Senate, expand the House of Representatives. We’re opposing that too. We don’t need any more politicians; we need fewer politicians in Canberra. They’re pushing that for their own benefit.
One Nation’s position is clear. Australians decide what we do, not unelected Brussels bureaucrats. We need to abolish UN net zero. We need to get out of the UN Paris Agreement and the UN Kyoto protocol. We support fair trade, not free trade. European Union and American farmers are subsidised heavily. We need to protect our farmers from exposure to free trade because it’s not free except in one way, and that’s hurting Australia. One Nation will cut the fuel excise in half and impose a royalty on export gas at last.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Polley): The time for the discussion has expired.
When harvest fuel bills double and take weeks to recoup from supermarkets, family farms simply can’t finance the food on our tables.
If Canberra keeps treating our fuel sovereignty like someone else’s problem, store shelves will empty fast.
Our food producers are already feeling the heat.
Government needs to step up and start looking after Australia.
Transcript
Yesterday, I met with Johanna Brighenti from NSW Farmers and member organisations across horticultural and meat industries. They raised issues caused by the Albanese government’s fuel crisis that are terrifying. The cost to get produce to market is going up by between 25 per cent and 75 per cent because of increased fuel costs.
Farmers and truckers using diesel are only getting 30 per cent of their fuel order. This is making Australian produce unaffordable. After the drought years, family farmers have nothing left to get through this.
It’s even worse for farmers in the middle of a harvest. One farmer saw their harvest fuel costs double, from $15,000 to $30,000 a week. Fuel bills have to be settled in 14 days. Supermarkets pay two months. Farmers can no longer afford to finance their harvest, and food will not get to supermarkets.
If the Canberra bubble think that this is someone else’s problem and that they need do nothing about it, I can assure you it’s going to get very real very quickly. For food producers it is already real.
The Albanese Labor Government’s Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 was nothing more than a drop in the tank during the fuel crisis. While its aims were to reduce lead times for renegotiating road transport contracts from over a year to a few weeks, it failed to solve the broader issues crushing our economy, agriculture, and everyday families.
Labor’s rushed these poorly drafted bills without proper consultation. This legislation hands unchecked, unscrutinised powers to the minister to interfere in the Enterprise Agreements protecting independent trucking companies indefinitely.
One Nation supported this bill because we wanted to offer immediate relief to our critical trucking industry. However, A One Nation government will amend it. We will mandate a sunset clause, require a formal declaration of emergency as a legislative instrument, and ensure measures expire as soon as the crisis ends.
The government should have invoked the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 weeks before this legislation was introduced. Doing so would have forced foreign multinational oil companies to release hoarded fuel reserves into the market, reining in regional price gouging.
While trucks keep Australia supplied, farmers face doubled fuel costs, making winter crop planting unsustainable. Labor is picking winners while ignoring regional Australia, small businesses, and manufacturing.
Australia is in this position because Net Zero ideology was prioritised over practical energy security.
Domestic oil production must be restored. We need to build new refineries, construct gas-to-petrol plants and establish a domestic gas reservation so Australia is never left vulnerable to foreign supply shocks again.
— March | Senate Speech
Transcript
Senator Roberts: The Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 is a drop in the tank when it comes to managing the fuel crisis. The bill relates to road transport contract chain orders which used to be called delivery contracts. It allows those contracts between businesses and their trucking companies to be renegotiated as a result of this fuel crisis. Currently, that process takes 12 months or more. This bill may—’may’, not ‘will’—reduce the lead time on a contract renegotiation to a few weeks.
The road freight industry is critical to the functioning of the economy. Everything in our supermarkets, hardware stores and shopping centres is trucked in. If trucks stop moving because the government failed to secure a supply of fuel, affordable diesel, then people starve; chemists, doctors, dentists and hospitals run out of supplies; casual employees and apprentices are put off work; and loans, rents and mortgages go into arrears. And it’s all downhill from there. It’s that simple.
This bill amends legislation that Labor introduced in 2024 which created these road transport contract chain orders without any emergency provisions or the ability of the government to step in when the public interest is not being protected. This bill corrects the Albanese government’s lack of foresight and forethought. This government needs to slow down its conga line of poorly written bills—we’ve had so many—take the time to consult and stop using the committee system as a rubber stamp. Had it done that, these provisions would most likely have already been included. The problem with this bill is that it doesn’t actually relate to the current fuel crisis, yet it gives the minister powers to interfere in any RTCCO—road transport contractual chain order—it wishes for the rest of time. Powers are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and there’s no requirement to make an order introducing an emergency RTCCO through a legislative instrument. Power without accountability is always a very bad idea. Emergency powers exist for emergencies, not to tip the scale in favour of your union mates.
One Nation will support this legislation. Given we have not had the time to prepare amendments to introduce checks and balances, One Nation will amend the bill when we take government. Our changes will require a declaration of emergency to be a legislative instrument setting out the reasons for the order and include a sunset clause, a trigger, so that, unlike what Labor is trying to do, measures do not extend past the end of the crisis.
One Nation points out that, while the trucking industry deserves the help this bill may provide, so does the rest of Australia. Due to a doubling of fuel costs, farmers are struggling to fund their harvests. Farms’ fuel bills must be paid in 14 days, while farmers are not paid for their harvests for an average of two months. With fuel costs rising from, as in one case I was told about, $15,000 per week to $30,000 a week, there are massive extra amounts for family farms to bankroll themselves—and they can’t. Around Australia today, farmers are unable to plant their winter crops. The spring harvests will be down, and fuel prices will go up. The Labor government is hollowing out the bush again. It’s driving people into the cities, and it’s running the fuel crisis to push that objective.
If the government had the best interests of Australia at heart, it would have already invoked the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. The act enables the Commonwealth government to prepare for and respond to severe shortages of crude oil and refined liquid fuels such as petrol, diesel and jet fuel. It supports Australia’s obligations under the International Energy Agency agreement and emphasises cooperative responses with industries, states and territories. It provides strong ministerial powers as a last resort if market mechanisms are insufficient. The act requires the minister to be satisfied that there is or is likely to be a serious shortage of liquid fuels with national implications that cannot be adequately addressed without using this bill’s special powers. Powers include directing industry-held stocks of crude oil and liquid fuel, such as requiring companies to maintain, purchase or release specified reserves at certain locations and, secondly, regulating fuel sales and distribution across Australia, including bulk-supply restrictions and retail rationing. This legislation is there, and it should have been invoked weeks ago. This is day 32 of the Iran conflict—32 days for the Prime Minister and his ministers to stop the selfies and cringy TikTok videos and address the real crisis; 32 days of horror for the economy, the devastation of which will ensure the ALP do not form government again.
Let me explain what’s going on here. These powers require the minister to do certain things. One of those things would be to force foreign multinational oil companies to direct the fuel they’re currently hoarding and supply some into the spot market. This is the market which supplies smaller outlets, especially in rural and regional areas. These are the outlets that suppliers are currently charging way over the odds for their petrol, causing price spikes. Then, once they’ve driven price spikes in the regions, the city outlets that those same multinational fuel companies own themselves put up prices to match prices imposed on the bush. The outcome is price gouging. It’s calculated, and it’s deliberate. The government rammed through legislation last week to increase the fines for doing exactly that, but it will take years before the ACCC’s legal action against multinational fuel companies gets through the courts. They’ll get a rap on the knuckles and agree to a small fine, banking windfall profits and most likely doing it all again. The Albanese Labor government is once again proving it’s the best friend of foreign multinationals and no friend of everyday Australians.
The Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 will result in transport charges rising—and that’s the point of the bill. Before the crisis, getting a tonne of produce to market cost $100. With the fuel shock, it’s now $175. This legislation will drive that price even higher. This isn’t the government helping the trucking industry; it’s the government making the rest of the economy pay more to help the trucking industry. Food will be dearer. Clothing will be dearer. Consumers will pay. The answer is to reduce the price of fuel, not force up the price of freight.
Last Friday, the National Road Transport Association, NatRoad, published comments critical of the legislation, pointing out:
“… most small to medium operators simply could not survive until Fair Work Changes flowed through.“
Here’s another quote:
“… recent announcements, including emergency Fair Work Commission powers and moves toward better fuel monitoring failed to address the immediate needs of industry.…
NatRoad is calling on the Federal Government to urgently implement three … measures to keep trucks on the road and prevent further economic disruption:
Activate emergency financial support payments for affected transport businesses
Introduce a six-month moratorium on heavy vehicle equipment loan repayments through lender hardship arrangements
Immediately remove the Road User Charge for heavy vehicles”
The national road user charge is a tax of 32.5c per litre of diesel. Operators claim back the fuel levy of 52c per litre and then pay the road user charge. One Nation calls on the government to suspend the road user charge for heavy vehicles for as long as this crisis continues. Taking out the fuel duty and the GST will make a large difference to trucking industry cash flows and their ability to get through this crisis—and reduce grocery bills. Invoking the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 to stop multinational fuel companies profiteering will reduce fuel prices and reduce the need for freight charges to rise.
The truth is that every sector in the economy is in need of assistance. The knock-on from extreme fuel prices extends right through the economy. Trucking has the potential to impact everyday Australians—and every Australian—and more quickly than other sectors, so it deserves first attention. We see no problem in that. My objection is that the Labor government is picking winners, helping some but not others based on its radical communist ideology. Labor says to small business, ‘No assistance for you’; to manufacturing, ‘No assistance for you’; to farmers, ‘Definitely no assistance for you lot’; to rail transport and ports, ‘No assistance for you’; to Defence, ‘No fuel for you.’
The Albanese Marles government refused the request from President Trump to participate in international efforts to make safe the Strait of Hormuz so Australian bound fuel tankers can get through to Singapore or South Korea to refine our petrol for us. This raises the question: Australia doesn’t have a defence strategic liquid fuel reserve, so just how much fuel do our armed forces actually have? And why did the Navy ponce around in Exercise Kakadu Fleet Review last week? This wasn’t a training exercise; this was to show off. From where did those boats come, to where are they returning, and how much fuel was wasted for a photo op in the middle of a fuel crisis? Fair dinkum! The Navy has now caught the selfie virus. Heaven help us.
The Albanese government snubbed the President of the United States, our greatest ally, while grovelling on hands and knees to him for fuel. ‘Please, sir,’ the Prime Minister pleads, ‘can we please have some of your oil reserve, as we sold ours off for a quick buck?’ The Albanese Labor government is a dishonest national disgrace. How did you not see this coming? One Nation have been banging on about the need for restoring oil production and increasing our domestic reserve since 2020—and about fuel security since 2016.
Now, I know social media is circulating a Liberal Party meme claiming that One Nation voted against giving subsidies to the Kwinana and Altona refineries in 2020 to keep them in production. Let me address that first, with a history of closures. Port Stanvac closed under the Howard Liberal government in 2003. Clyde closed under the Gillard Labor government in 2012. Kurnell closed under the Liberals and Nationals in 2014. Bulwer Island closed under the Liberals and Nationals in 2015. Kwinana closed under the Liberal and Nationals in 2021. Altona closed under the Liberals and Nationals in 2021. Now, the meme circulated says that One Nation voted against the fuel security package in 2021, which we did. What the meme does not tell you the bill we opposed was a stunt. BP and Exxon had already announced the closure before the bill was ever written. The Liberal-National government designed the bill to pretend to the public in the 2022 election that the Liberals cared about fuel refining—all to look good, not do good. Exxon and BP never received the money. They knocked it back because plans for closure were underway, and $2.3 billion wasn’t enough to change their minds. So what did we vote against? Nothing—a Liberal Party con, a fraud on the voters. I’m so pleased the Liberals dug that one up though; it shows they haven’t changed.
By the way, I remind people that Pauline Hanson said: ‘Why are we handing over money? We need equity.’ No, the Liberals didn’t want equity. Just hand over the cash. In her speech in the Liberals’ 2021 bail-out bill, Senator Pauline Hanson called on the government to use that money to buy those refineries and put them into the hands of Australian people to maintain our domestic refining capacity. Of course, the Liberals and the Nationals ignored that request.
Let’s be clear. Australia is in this mess because the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens, the Teals and the Labor Party all still believe in climate change. I tested that last week with my amendment to the appropriation bills that called for the net zero spending to be removed from the budget. Their vote on our amendment is damning. Labor opposed. Liberals opposed. Nationals opposed. Greens opposed. Teal David Pocock opposed. These parties all support giving away another $9 billion to climate prostitutes feeding off the UN net zero scam—parasites killing Australia’s energy and economy. So, of course, they’re not going to do anything to help the petrol and diesel industry. This government is making a horrible mess of the fuel crisis because it’s making decisions based on ideology not practicality—on a scam and contrary to the hard, empirical scientific data. And the globalist Liberals and Nationals are right there with them. Shame on you all!
We need to drill for oil; restore production in the known deposits—and we’ve got plenty; get started building new refineries; and, in particular, build new gas to petrol plants to use Australia’s cheap, natural gas to make our own petrol again. One Nation introduced legislation for a domestic gas reservation to provide the gas we need for that, and of course the uniparty voted it down. When will people realise these tired old parties love their ideology and their donors and hate anyone who doesn’t agree with their ideology or with their donors? One Nation cares about everyday Australians, and that’s why we’re surging in the polls. It’s not about patriotism or nationalism. Our surge is the public realising that the old parties do not have their backs and One Nation does.
To remind the Senate, One Nation has already called for the removal of the fuel excise and a three-month moratorium on GST on liquid fuels. Taken together, they will reduce fuel prices outside the trucking industry by 75 cents a litre—a real benefit for everyday Australians. The government has refused to take that measure, even while Treasury is making out like bandits raking in hundreds of millions of dollars each month in additional GST payments on crazy-high fuel prices. I haven’t heard a state premier complain about that either, as they benefit from the GST. The states must be held to account, as well, for their greed.
Everyday Australians are filling up their vehicle in terror and, yes, in anger at the Albanese government’s greed and arrogance and distance. It’s $100 to fill a small car and up to $200 to fill a family car in the most energy-rich nation on Earth. The biggest exporter of hydrocarbons in the world is Australia. Groceries will go unbought; that’s if they’re available. Clothing and homeware stores are already reporting slow-downs. Your children won’t get those new clothes, new shoes or quality groceries, because their parents are having to pay for the stupidity, the arrogance, the dishonesty, the deceit and the greed of the Chalmers-Albanese Labor government. I foreshadow One Nation’s second reading amendment on sheet 3747.
I’m pleased the government sees the fuel crisis is real. When we mentioned it first, One Nation were called far right extremists for labelling it. I’m pleased the government sees the regional crisis is now real. Again, One Nation called it first because we listen. Suspend fuel taxes now!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lBIffN2-Kao/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-01 16:18:212026-09-03 08:18:51Drill, Refine, Secure: Solving the Fuel Crisis for Good
The Labor government introduced legislation to increase the petrol and diesel excise by 16 cents a litre. When combined with GST (a tax on a tax) and retailer margins, everyday Australians will face an extra 32 cents per litre at the pump. This is money going straight into Treasury to fund Labor’s wasteful spending.
This tax hike hits those who can least afford it. While large corporations can pass these costs on to consumers, small and medium businesses lack market power and must absorb the hit directly from their profits. For everyday families, commuting, running errands and simple drives will all become more expensive.
Contrary to claims, reducing the fuel excise is not inflationary. It directly lowers fuel prices, which immediately reduces CPI inflation.
Furthermore, because fuel is a core input across the whole economy (farmers, tradespeople and freight operators), lowering fuel costs relieves inflationary pressure across all goods and services.
When One Nation proposed cutting the fuel excise by 50% and freezing indexation, it was dismissed. Yet, when the government temporarily adopted our measure, it proved to be a resounding success for living costs and inflation. That is why One Nation is calling on the government to freeze the fuel excise and cancel all indexation increases until June 2028.
While Labor is raising taxes to fund its reckless spending, a One Nation government would put a line through these wasteful projects.
We would:
➡️ Terminate all Net Zero spending, including associated departments, grants, and subsidies.
➡️ End funding to the “Aboriginal industry”, replacing it with direct grants to local councils for housing, infrastructure, and community support.
➡️ Scrap Snowy Hydro 2.0, saving taxpayers from a financial sinkhole that could reach $100 billion.
➡️ Cancel the $3.8 billion federal allocation for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop, an insane project projected to cost $216 billion that serves to line the pockets of union bosses.
The Albanese government must stop overtaxing Australians to funnel money to renewables, union mates, and left-wing causes.
One Nation will put money back in your pocket, starting with a freeze on the fuel excise until 2028.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: This week the government is introducing legislation to make a 16c a litre increase to the excise levied on petrol and diesel. When including the GST, which is levied on top of the fuel tax—it’s a tax on a tax—and then adding retailer margins, this will cause petrol to go up around 20c a litre before the weekend. Every litre, 20c—kerching into the Treasury for Labor to waste. This is occurring just when small business and everyday Australians are recovering from the high petrol prices caused as a direct result of the war in the Strait of Hormuz.
Make no mistake, this is a tax on those who cannot afford it. Large corporations can simply pass this rise on to their customers—meaning you’ll be paying more. Small and medium businesses can’t do that. They have no market power. They are price takers. This tax rise will come straight out of what is left of their profit. Everyday Australians will find their drive to work will be more expensive, as will running around after the children. Even a simple day out, just getting in the car and going out for a drive, will be more expensive.
I know when One Nation promised a 50 per cent reduction in the fuel excise at the last election, the commentariat called that ‘inflationary’. Then the government copied our policy and suddenly it’s no longer inflationary! Which is correct? It’s not inflationary. Reducing the fuel excise reduces the petrol price, which is directly trapped in the CPI—the consumer price index—calculation. Lower fuel prices means lower inflation.
There is a second-round effect as well. Fuel is an input cost right through the economy, from the farmer running a cool room or ploughing a field, to the local tradesman, to the truckie who delivers everything we buy. When fuel goes up, everything goes up. When fuel goes down, inflationary pressure is taken out of the economy. Reducing the fuel excise will reduce inflation. It’s that simple. It’s proven. This is why One Nation promised, at the last election, to reduce the fuel excise by 50 per cent and suspend indexation for 12 months, with a review after that.
Well, the government borrowing our policy for a few months has provided the review we needed to know that the policy is a winner. Everyday Australians have enjoyed the lower cost of living. Inflationary pressures were taken out of the economy for a short time. This is why One Nation are calling on the government to not increase the fuel excise until June 2028, including cancelling all indexation increases, and then review it after the next election, which any incoming government would do anyway. Give hardworking Australians and small businesses two more years of respite from the Albanese government’s high—stubbornly high—inflation.
Why do the government need to put this tax up? Because they’re wasting our money again, that’s why! This budget included measures that One Nation would have put the red line through. I’ve already spoken about our policy promising to remove all net zero spending, including the department itself, loans, grants and associated boondoggles. We’ve already announced all spending on the Aboriginal industry will be terminated. Instead, One Nation will give grants directly to local government to build the homes and roads and provide maintenance and support to Aboriginal communities.
We’ve already announced that Snowy Hydro 2.0 will be terminated and taxpayers saved from a financial disaster which may reach $1 trillion for capital costs, interest, maintenance and subsidies for the tiny amount of electricity the project will generate in the period the construction loans are being paid back. The budget set aside $3.8 billion for Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has put the cost of this project at $216 billion over a 50-year finance cycle. This is an insane project. Even Victorians don’t want it. It’s there to put money into the pockets of corrupt union bosses and assorted underworld figures, as 60 Minutes clearly showed last night. One Nation would terminate that project.
We will have more policy announcements in the months ahead. For today’s debate, let me say this: the Albanese government needs to stop overtaxing everyday Australians so it can funnel money to its mates in the unions, to the renewable solar and wind industry, academia and other costly lefty nonsense causes—spending that does not benefit everyday Australians and certainly benefits the Labor Party’s election campaign funds. Labor is making life harder during a severe cost-of-living crisis. One Nation will put more money back in people’s pockets, starting with a freeze on fuel excises until 2028.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ly_zfr8u81o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-20 16:41:112026-08-20 16:41:22One Nation vs Labor: Putting Money Back in Your Pocket
A question I asked Minister Don Farrell back in March.
From the start, One Nation opposed the UN’s net zero policies and will continue to oppose.
Will the Uniparty fully embrace coal, oil, and gas as being essential for modern civilisation and commit to true national self-sufficiency across our entire hydrocarbon supply chain, from drilling to the petrol pump?
I doubt it!
— March | Senate Debate
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, from the start, One Nation has completely opposed the United Nations net zero scam. Only One Nation has said from the start and continues to say, ‘Scrap United Nations’s net zero.’ The Nationals say, ‘Scrap net zero by 2050.’ They support the net zero concept but want to delay implementation. The Liberals say the same. They still support UN’s net zero; they just want to drop net zero by 2050. The Liberals started net zero under Prime Minister Morrison after he’d promised at the election just 18 months earlier not to adopt it. The Nationals went along with it blindly. The Labor Party has adopted One Nation suggestions—
Senator Canavan: Barnaby did!
Senator ROBERTS: He now realises he was wrong, and he’s probably said so, to his credit. That shows his integrity and courage. Labor has adopted One Nation’s suggestions. We were the first to raise the looming fuel crisis back on Monday 2 March, three days after the Israelis attacked Iran. We were ridiculed for that—called far-right-wing extremists, I think—by the Labor Party. I can distinctly visualise Senator Tim Ayres over there saying that as he pointed towards me. It doesn’t bother us, because we know that he was desperate. But we thank you for adopting so many of our policies over that last four weeks, and you’re still adopting them. Thank you. Will you adopt our advice to scrap UN net zero? Will you at least acknowledge that the hydrocarbon fuels coal, oil and natural gas are essential for modern civilisation—in particular, oil for transport? Will you acknowledge that we need to be self-sufficient in the entire hydrocarbon supply chain, from drilling rig through to petrol pump?
Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his question. I should congratulate you on your result in the South Australian elections, Senator Roberts. I know you came down and campaigned, certainly in the seat of Colton. I saw you down there with your candidate.
I have an apology to make to Senator Canavan. When I was answering one of his questions last week, I referred to the fact that, in his first outing as leader of the National Party, where he was going to take on One Nation, your candidates got 22 per cent of the vote, and I said in the Senate that the Nationals had got one per cent. I have to apologise to Senator Canavan; that was not correct. It was 0.7 of one per cent, not one per cent. So, in his first outing as leader, espousing all of the policy positions he’s just explained to this Senate, that was the result.
We do produce gas in this country, Senator Roberts, and we’ve produced it under this government. I’ve referred, in an earlier answer to Senator Canavan, to some of the places where we’re doing it. We’re doing it in the Barossa. We’re doing it in the Beetaloo. One day we might do it in Narrabri. We’re certainly increasing production in the Cooper Basin in South Australia. But we do have a commitment to net zero. That is, as you say, a commitment that both the Nationals and the coalition, at certain periods of time, have been committed to. Gas, in particular, is a transition fuel, Senator Roberts. It’s the way in which you get to net zero.
But right now we have an emergency. We need to ensure that our stocks of petrol, diesel and airline fuel continue to be available to businesses and consumers in this country. There is an emergency about dealing with this. What happens on the sea is that there are ships containing oil, petrol and airline fuel. They become available for purchase, and sometimes you’re only given 24 or 48 hours to make that purchase. The reason we have decided to use the facility of Export Finance Australia to bid for these products is that they’re a very nimble organisation, they’re very experienced in this space, they are run really well by a fellow called John Hopkins, they regularly report to me, and we see them as the best organisation to ensure that we act quickly on this.
Minister Bowen has ensured that, in combination with me and Minister King, we have taken all of the steps that we need to take to ensure that Australians continue to have access to all of those fuels that I just mentioned. But there is an urgency about this legislation. Despite everything Senator Canavan said, I’m not sure that he appreciates that urgency. We do need to get on with this, and the quicker we pass this legislation, the quicker we can get some certainty to businesses and consumers about the reliable supply of those fuels.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Scarr): Senator Roberts, there’s only seventeen seconds left for the debate, but you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you support One Nation’s initiative in recommending the conversion of gas to liquid fuels? You mentioned gas.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Scarr): I’m sorry, Minister, but, pursuant to the order agreed to yesterday, the time allotted on this bill has expired.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ts1L1S6u8DA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-05 15:45:282026-08-05 15:45:31Rejecting the UN Scam
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/t22LKdNqnqo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-06 12:42:582026-07-06 12:43:02Snowy 2.0: A Masterclass in Government Failure
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—
https://img.youtube.com/vi/X6kJ-bsWCcY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-02 10:06:342026-07-02 10:06:40Net Zero is Crippling Australia
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.
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.
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.’
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/14qDPVETo1U/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-29 14:55:132026-05-29 14:55:25Saving the Planet or Destroying It? The Ugly Truth
