The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is yet another example of the wasteful, agenda driven legislation that a One Nation government would abolish. For three decades, Australians have been held hostage by the costly green climate scam – climate fraud. This Bill continues that trend—now with a hint of desperation.
One Nation stands with everyday Australians. In contrast, the Liberal-Labor-Greens alliance has long served the interests of globalist elites, foreign corporations, unelected non-government organisations, the UN and the World Economic Forum.
Minister Chris Bowen — otherwise known as the “Minister for Blackouts” — is acting like a addicted, compulsive gambler chasing losses, dragging the nation deeper into debt. If the government truly believes in the merit of this bill, it should table the rules and show Australians exactly where the money is going.
The net zero transition is not helping the environment — it’s harming it. It’s driving up costs, strangling businesses and pushing families into poverty.
It’s time to face reality: net zero is a scam. Only One Nation has the courage to call it out, and a real plan to put Australians first—by restoring affordable energy, rejecting imported UN and WEF ideologies, and putting more money back in your pocket where it belongs.
Transcript
The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation.
The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen were commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren’t. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn’t happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It’s called the profit motive.
Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity.
Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It’s marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it’s using its shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they’re legislated.
There’s nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it’s a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation.
Let’s move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We’re tossing money at these people, and it’s wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. ‘What’s a billion here or there?’ says the government.
The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there’s no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people’s money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation’s proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs.
Let’s move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It’s even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don’t, and yet you’re going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either.
In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won’t touch.
Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as ‘Minister for Blackouts’, Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let’s see what the government does intend.
The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It’s costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It’s now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering.
I’m now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living.
Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you’re going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people’s pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order:
The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution …
That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero.
I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It’s almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn’t tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia.
Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians’ pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money.
Australia watched the Treasurer turn the cabinet room into a stage for business and union bosses instead of using it for real cabinet deliberation. The roundtable wasn’t about shaping policy—it was about rubberstamping what the government had already decided. Their attempt to link productivity to higher taxes collapsed, and Australians are left wondering why this government keeps chasing revenue instead of fixing its spending problem.
One Nation will fight the Albanese government’s tax hikes and end the wasteful net zero transition that’s draining billions a year while driving private enterprise away. We will restore fiscal sanity by cutting unnecessary spending, imposing an eight-year residency requirement for Social Security, and cracking down on fraud in agencies such as Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS, and the PBS.
Smaller government and a sensible energy policy will deliver real productivity gains and prosperity for Australians—especially our young.
Transcript
Last week, Australia watched the Treasurer host business and union bosses in the cabinet room. The irony escaped the Treasurer—using the cabinet room to hold a policy debate cabinet itself should be doing. The usual suspects were not there to help form government policy; they were there to rubberstamp the policies the government intends to implement in this parliament. The roundtable even failed to achieve that. We know this because the ABC leaked the outcome of the week before. That communique remains in Treasurer Chalmers’s drawer, abandoned and unloved. The core intent—making productivity about taxation—failed.
One Nation will oppose the tax hike the Albanese government will still try to introduce to cover its growing financial black hole caused largely through the increasing use of taxpayer money to pay for a net zero transition from which private enterprise is walking away—indeed, running away. This government doesn’t need more revenue; it needs to spend less money. One Nation will abolish the net zero transition, saving the government $30 billion each year in direct expenditure and generating that much again in extra revenue from a revitalised economy. One Nation will impose an eight-year residency requirement on access to social security, taking tens of billions of dollars off the cost of Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS and the PBS and giving auditors and police a chance to investigate and prosecute the rampant fraud. Net zero insanity, deficit spending and throwing cash at new arrivals are robbing our children of their future.
Smaller government and a sensible energy policy are where productivity improvements will actually come from. One Nation’s policies will restore wealth and prosperity for all who are here, especially our young. The Albanese government will just take your money and leave working Australians with less—much less. A One Nation government, though, will restore Australia.
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank deny home loans to mining communities
Australian banks are the world’s most profitable, raking in $30bn in profits last year. Much of this was sent overseas to their foreign shareholders, including the usual suspects – Blackrock, First State, and Vanguard. In total, Australian banks paid $27 billion in dividends, of which 26% or around $7 billion was sent to foreign-owned corporations.
Every dollar which goes overseas in dividends is a dollar Australia never sees again, reducing our GDP and making us all poorer.
In this Parliament, One Nation will introduce legislation to create an Australian People’s Bank, with 100% Australian ownership and a Banking Code of Practice which gives customers rights and protections that have been removed from the code being used by Australian banks.
Rural and Regional customers will benefit the most, with many Australian towns no longer having a single bank branch.
Banking greed, dishonesty, and profiteering is something I have been working on since coming into the Senate in 2016.
In 2017 One Nation were successful in creating a Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers. It was obvious to the Senate the banks were screwing over the bush.
Specific issues raised by the Inquiry have been substantially addressed although remediation has not occurred. The big banks are behaving more responsibly in their lending practices as a result of this Inquiry and the Royal Commission that followed.
While lending practices have improved, the banks have turned to other schemes to make their excessive profits.
One area of great concern, one which will be corrected by a People’s Bank, is the closing of bank branches, forcing customers online.
In the last 10 years 2,500 bank branches have closed
I have written about the effect this has before. Today there is a new scam I want to alert you to. I thank the fearless journalist Dale Webster for her work on this topic: link to her article titled “Burning Down the House”.
The culprit this time is the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Australia’s fifth largest bank.
Bendigo are refusing to give home loans to any town or region which hosts a mine. This includes any mine, no matter the purpose – gold, coal, iron ore, bauxite, rare earths needed for the technology – everything.
Yes, the Bendigo Bank is black-banning towns where the very materials are mined that are used to make the computers that run their bank. What folly.
Anyone applying online for a loan to buy property in a mining area is immediately denied. Home lending in all of Queensland’s mining regions – from coal, oil and gas to opal mining – is knocked back by Bendigo Bank. Yes, even opals.
Distinct areas separated from others by favoured postcodes include Moura (4718) in the Bowen Basin coalfield, home to the Dawson Coal Mine, Mount Isa (4825), site of one of Australia’s largest copper and zinc mining complexes, and the world-renowned opal fields surrounding Quilpie and Longreach.
Coal centres Moranbah, Dysart, Clermont, Emerald, and Blackwater are no home-loan zones, as is the Roma-Miles-Dalby district, the site of Australia’s first oil and gas discoveries. Weipa, built by Rio Tinto to house bauxite mine workers in Far North Queensland, gets an instant knockback as does Tieri, built to house coal workers north of Emerald.
In the course of this investigation, more than 1,000 locations across Australia have been run through Bendigo Bank’s online loan process to verify whether this is truly a mining blacklist or if these postcodes are part of a bigger cohort focusing on general risk.
The Australian Taxation Office’s 10 lowest earning suburbs in every state and territory for 2021-22 were reviewed. The top 100 riskiest suburbs to purchase housing in for 2024 according to Realestate.com were reviewed. Climate Valuation’s top 30 suburbs by ‘number of high-risk properties from all climate change hazards by 2030’ were reviewed. All were approved.
Bendigo Bank will lend for housing in the poorest, riskiest, and most isolated places in Australia rather than a mining area.
This is not about risk, this is about social engineering.
Bendigo and Adelaide bank are publicly-listed Australian companies. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to act in their best interests, not indulge their own prejudices.
As Dale points out, the embarrassing thing is that Bendigo, the city from which Bendigo Bank takes its name and where it has its head office, was built on gold mining.
If people cannot finance their home purchases these towns will die. This is a deliberate and possibly criminal attempt by the Bendigo Bank to destroy mining in Australia by destroying the towns that support the mines.
Once an area loses housing credits and mortgages the bank in that area can be closed, using the lie that there is no longer the demand for the branch. The truth is the banks are creating the lack of demand by withdrawing key banking services and engineering the closure.
Do you hear a peep out of the leadership of the Nationals or the Liberals about this? No of course not.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and Nationals Leader David Littleproud take their orders form the same predatory merchant banks that Bendigo Bank does. The Liberals, in particular, have overseen this destruction of retail banking in Australia since the time of Prime Minister Howard.
Only One Nation will fix this profiteering and control agenda by creating a People’s Bank.
Mining towns debanked by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank deny home loans to mining communities
It was a pleasure to speak at an “Australians for Better Government” event on the Gold Coast, where we discussed Australia’s political future.
At the end, I got a warm standing ovation — clearly what I shared struck a chord with everyone there.
Note: This is a re-record of my original speech.
Transcript
Love. Care. Reason. Traits unique to our human species. Everyone in this room is proof humans care. We survived years of infancy and childhood when completely dependent.
Thank you to Australians for Better Government, organisers, speakers, audience, viewers, my wife Christine and Pauline who is the only politician who didn’t run from my climate work and instead came to me.
I’m excited. This is about restoring human potential and progress.
I’m proud to be here because we all have pride in our country. WE ALL want OUR country to be much better.
I’ll clarify my speech’s goal for you. The one thing I want everyone to remember is: why I detest most politicians, yet love and admire humans.
This matters because it’s the key to restoring our country, lifestyle, standard of living.
The second thing I want everyone to remember is that we’re told the biggest purchase of our life is our house. That’s wrong – taxes, fees and levies make our biggest purchase government.
Are we getting value?
The direct cost of government is taxes. The direct cost of government waste is excessive taxes. The INDIRECT cost of government is failed or destructive policies choking productive capacity, driving waste, killing initiative.
120 years ago, our country had the world’s highest per capita income. What the hell happened?
I’ll share what I’ve done for 18 yrs on a key issue – climate fraud – in the senate and before the senate.
Starting in 2007, I worked voluntarily for nine years researching climate science – pursuing Empirical Data in Logical Points to understand Cause-And-Effect. Thank you, Christine. Then, I researched the corruption of climate science leading to the UN. And to drivers behind the UN’s climate politics – the World Bank, IMF, World Economic Forum, global banks, global wealth funds like BlackRock.
Then to motives. And to beneficiaries. Stealing money from Taxpayers.
I held people accountable – politicians, journalists, academics, agencies.
For another nine years from 2016, as a senator I held organisations and ministers accountable – climate and energy agencies, departments. Using my initiative and Question Time, Senate Estimates, speeches, letters.
(I’m feeling vulnerable, anxious. Right shoulder and hand tremor. Look beyond it and pay attention to my words).
I’ve written a speech because I’ll be covering a lot of ground and want to respect your time.
So, what’s the core climate claim? Climate alarmists claim carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbon fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – and from farming animals for food, is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – which they claim will raise temperature for catastrophic warming in some distant unspecified future.
That’s the basis for claimed solutions with devastating impacts on society:
Taxing and controlling farming and food – to stop raising animals, including stealing property rights to control land use and control citizens.
Taxing and controlling energy.
Pursuing UN Sustainable Development Goals to control every aspect of people’s lifestyle and life: what we eat, energy, travel, finances, homes.
All claimed to be based on science.
So, what’s science?
When done properly, science investigates and explains our physical world. Science is the systematic objective study of our physical world through observation, experimentation and testing of theories against the EMPIRICAL DATA. Hard data in LOGICAL POINTS proving CAUSE-AND-EFFECT. SCIENTIFIC PROOF needs Data in Logical Points proving Cause-And-Effect.
Graduate Engineers like I are trained in science because we apply science. We understand scientific proof because it prevents us killing people.
My science training includes geology and atmospheric gases – two of the most important topics of climate science.
To understand empirical data, we need to understand variation. There’s variation in everything. There are two broad types of variation:
Inherent natural variation
Process change
Plus, Cycles – some daily, others 150M years
Time frames are important. Daily variation in temperatures is huge. Seasonal variations can be large. Yet over a 30-year climate cycle temperature may be consistent.
So, let’s define the problem.
Every person, business, employer uses and relies on electricity, petrol, diesel – at home. And at work. Australia has gone from having the most affordable power to having one of the world’s highest power prices.
The key to global competitive advantage is having the lowest power price.
China uses our coal to generate electricity for 12 cents per Kilowatt Hour [8 c/KWh]. We pay 26 to 33 cents per Kilowatt Hour.
Consider Parliament
From 1996 to 2007, John Howard’s Liberal-National government committed to comply with the UN Kyoto Protocol introducing HIS solar and windRenewable Energy Target, HIS National Electricity Market that’s really a National Bureaucratic Racket, stealing farmer’s property rights, and being the first major party to promise a Carbon Dioxide TAX policy.
All claimed to be based on “climate science”.
Yet 6 years later, in 2013, Howard admitted in distant London that “on climate he is agnostic”. HE DID NOT HAVE THE SCIENCE.
Since then, the LNP introduced every major climate and energy policy. Labor then accelerated each.
As a senator, I wrote letters to 10 Members of Parliament. All confirmed in writing they had NEVER been given scientific proof.
I wrote letters to another 19 senators who advocate cutting carbon dioxide from human activity. Four replied. NONE provided scientific proof.
The Greens and others refused to debate me – Larissa Waters in 2010, in 2016, and repeatedly from 2019.
Waters is a lawyer and makes many false and unsubstantiated claims, and misrepresents climate. She’s never provided scientific proof.
Members of Parliament like David Pocock show no understanding of science. His donors include Climate 200 with huge conflicts of interest.
They invoke so-called “experts” and other logical fallacies. They use emotion especially fear and catchy slogans. They have no scientific proof. Greens repeatedly lie, misrepresent, and sideline science with personal attacks.
From 2007 to 2016, I sent hundreds of Registered Post letters to Ministers and politicians. Most MP’s don’t know what’s science. Others lie. Others are cowed, gutless.
Why? Let’s see why they never present scientific proof.
CSIRO and What it Calls Climate “Science”
My 2013 Freedom Of Information request revealed that no CSIRO Chief Executive had sent a climate report to any MPs, Ministers, parliament.
My 2013 Letter to the CSIRO Chief Executive and to the head of CSIRO’s climate team produced no scientific proof. And their replies were evasive.
In 2016 in the senate, my first actionrequested CSIRO’s Climate team to provide scientific proof that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut.
At CSIRO’s first three-hour presentation to me, CSIRO’s climate chief stated – CSIRO has NEVER said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger.
He said, quote: “Determination of danger is a matter for public and politicians”. Yet politicians say it’s a danger. And say the CSIRO advised them.
CSIRO acknowledged to me the need for empirical data as scientific proof – yet failed to prove that human carbon dioxide causes climate change.
CSIRO admitted it lacks empirical data in logical scientific proof. Instead of physical data, CSIRO relied on unvalidated, erroneous computer models.
After 50 years of so-called research, CSIRO presented just ONE paper on temperature: Marcott, 2013. CSIRO used it to claim today’s temperatures are unprecedented. Yet Marcott himself had previously admitted his paper’s twentieth century temperatures are NOT robust and are NOT representative of global temperature.
CSIRO’s temperature graphs were all over the place. Some showed the 1998 El Nino peak which in other graphs disappeared.
On carbon dioxide, CSIRO presented just ONE paper: Harries, 2001. It did NOT support CSIRO’s claim of unprecedented levels of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. We made CSIRO aware of the paper’s flaws that made it unscientific and statistically invalid. CSIRO admitted NOT doing due diligence on reports. Nor on external data.
At CSIRO’s second three-hour presentation, CSIRO confirmed today’s temps are NOT unprecedented.
CSIRO presented Lecavalier’s 2017 paper on temperatures, which our team showed is hopelessly flawed. CSIRO acknowledged that, effectively withdrawing it. And the authors withheld data from our scrutiny.
CSIRO presented a second paper on Carbon Dioxide: Feldman, 2015. It refutes Harries’ paper that CSIRO presented earlier. We showed CSIRO that Feldman’s paper is flawed. CSIRO acknowledged, effectively withdrawing it.
At CSIRO’s third presentation, CSIRO claimed RATES of temperature increase are unprecedented. Yet NASA satellites reveal temperatures are essentially flat and have now been flat for 30 years.
CSIRO presented five new references on temperatures. Some contradicted others. All were nonspecific. Scientifically useless. CSIRO never specified the effect of human carbon dioxide on climate. Thus, there’s no basis for policy cutting carbon dioxide.
We devoted eight hours listening to, and cross-examining CSIRO across three presentations with no scientific proof.
Internationally, 18 eminent scientists and statisticians confirmed CSIRO’s material is NOT adequate for policy.
CLEARLY CSIRO had never presented a climate report or presentation containing scientific proof. CLEARLY no one had held CSIRO accountable on climate – ever. Yet CSIRO Chief Executive is paid more than a million dollars per year.
Former CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark was on two banks’ Advisory Boards – Bank Of America Merrill Lynch and Rothschilds Australia, both seeking windfall profits from Carbon Dioxide Trading.
Conflicts of interest?
At Senate Estimates hearings, CSIRO has never presented scientific proof for Australia’s climate and energy policies. We need a real scientific debate that CSIRO and parliament avoided.
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)
My 2013 Freedom Of Information request revealed that BOM sent 17 documents to MP’s and Ministers. Many were just one-page broad, general UN updates. None contained scientific proof.
My 2013 letters to BOM executives produced no scientific proof and whose replies instead unscientifically claimed a consensus.
BOM has been exposed for tampering with temperature data. Repeatedly. Example – temperatures at Rutherglen weather station in Victoria were changed from a long-term cooling trend to concocting a warming trend. And many other weather stations. Other temperature data adjustments have been made under the label “Homogenisation“. With no audit. Fabricating warming.
BOM displays omitthe 1880’s/1890’s that were significantly warmer than today. Heatwaves back then were longer, hotter and more frequent. BOM’s not aware of many station Meta data errors.
In Senate Estimates hearings BOM has never presented scientific proof nor any scientific basis for climate policy.
Australia’s Chief Scientist
In 2017, I organised a personal meeting with Chief Scientist Alan Finkel and Science Minister Arthur Sinodinos. After taking just a few questions Finkel admitted he does NOT understand climate science. Yet governments used him to publicly speak as if he’s a climate expert.
We then requested and he promised a four-hour presentation and discussion covering scientific proof and specific references. A date was agreed. Soon after he cancelled and failed to set a new date.
No Chief Scientist has provided scientific proof.
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on CC – UN IPCC
Both major parties, the Greens and Prime Ministers cite UN IPCC reports as the basis for climate policy. The UN has no scientific proof for its claims of warming and climate change. And no specific effect of cutting human carbon dioxide. Thus, the UN has no basis for climate and energy policies cutting human carbon dioxide.
The UN has no scientific basis for its temperature targets – initially fabricated at 2 degrees Celsius and later 1.5 degrees.
Both the UN IPCC Chair and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd claim 4,000 scientists said in the UN’s 2007 report that human carbon dioxide caused global warming. Yet the UN report’s own figures show only five UN reviewers endorsed the claim. And, there’s doubt they were scientists.
CSIRO is a major contributor to UN climate reports.
UN climate research excludes natural climate drivers. The UN defines “Climate Change” as studying only theories of man-made climate change. Ignoring and excluding natural drivers of climate.
The key graph driving the UN’s reports was the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph scientifically proven to be fraudulent. Instead of scientific proof, UN reports rely on unvalidated, erroneous computer models. With outputs falsely labelled as “data”!
The UN told us that no UN report states carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Because it’s not a pollutant, except in politicians’ speeches. UN Lead Authors rebelled against the UN’s corruption of climate science, yet the media did NOT report it. The UN, after initially hyping extreme weather to scare people globally, now projects no increase in so-called “Extreme weather” events.
The UN IPCC is a political entity pushing political goals.
The senior UN bureaucrat Maurice Strong fabricated both global warming, and later climate change. His stated life’s aims were to:
De-industrialise Western civilisation, and
Install an unelected socialist global government.
He said:
“humanity is the enemy.”
He was a co-founder and Director of the Chicago Climate Exchange seeking to make trillions of dollars from global trading of Carbon Dioxide Credits. American police sought Maurice Strong for crimes, and he went into self-exile in China, a major beneficiary of the west’s climate and energy policies.
UN senior climate bureaucrats like Figueres and Edenhofer admit the climate agenda is NOT about the environment. It’s about changing society and economics.
“a New World Economic Order”.
It’s all about control and wealth transfer from we the people to globalist corporations, investment funds, banks, aligned billionaires and the UN.
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies G.I.S.S. (GISS)
Head of NASA-GISS climate group, Gavin Schmidt, admitted to me in writing that what GISS had previously claimed as four nations’ independent temperature graphs are NOT independent. All four used the same base data and each then made separate ”ADJUSTMENTS”. When I pointed out his accidental admission he stopped corresponding.
I held him accountable for NASA-GISS fabricating Iceland temperature records. Indeed, NASA-GISS has created temperature data in places where it’s NOT measured.
NASA executives, scientists and astronauts wrote a scathing letter to NASA’s head pleading with him to stop GISS from corrupting climate science.
NASA-GISS has never presented scientific proof that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut. Other agencies prominent in claiming or inferring that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut have never provided scientific proof.
ALL depend on government funding.
America’s National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
The British Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre with its HadCRUT dataset – the basis for the UN climate report.
Australian Academy of Science – who I held accountable in writing.
Ross Garnaut’s 2008 Garnaut Review admits his influential report has no Scientific Proof. Despite his massive conflicts of interest, the Rudd government often used Garnaut’s review to justify climate & energy policies.
No university. No scientific society. No agency. No government. No journalist. No NGO – not Greenpeace, WWF, Climate 200. No celebrity. No company. No industry group. No politician anywhere has provided scientific proof.
Federal government energy agencies and departments currently crippling Australia’s energy grid have never provided scientific proof. Nor specific scientific basis for policy.
I conclude that some climate academics are really activists misrepresenting climate science while having substantial conflicts of interest, including being on government payrolls. In my view, these include Tim Flannery, Will Stefan, David Karoly, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Lesley Hughes, Kurt Lambeck, Matthew England, Andy Pitman and Stefan Lewandowsky.
Summary
Canadian Climatologist Professor Tim Ball, with 40 years holding alarmists accountable, said I’m the ONLY member of parliament or Congress anywhere in the world to hold a government climate agency, CSIRO accountable. Marc Morano confirmed. This is not said to brag. It shows that most western politicians and governments have gullibly swallowed or ignorantly supported climate fraud.
Across parliaments, politicians – like many people – bow to groupthink, party dictates and peer pressure to meet an ever-present need to belong.
Former senior American Senator James Inhofe was about to vote for a Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trading Scheme, as the basis for a global Carbon Dioxide Tax, when Morano showed him it’s part of UN Agenda 21 to lock up land across America. At the last minute, Inhofe stood up and rallied opposition. The American Senate rejected the scheme, and the world was spared the UN’s global Carbon Dioxide Tax.
All scary forecasts of climate catastrophes have failed. Polar ice caps, storms, Great Barrier Reef, polar bears. Yet here in Australia, the Greens, Labor, Liberals, Teals and Nationals say they rely on CSIRO, BOM, UN, NASA-GISS for climate and energy policies including the UN’s Paris Agreement and Net Zero.
What Does Nature Tell Us About Climate Variability?
Analysis of our 24,000 datasets worldwide show no process change in any climate factor. Just inherent natural variation. And, natural cycles.
The last 30 years of data from NASA satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures show no warming despite ever-increasing production of carbon dioxide from China, India, America, Russia, Europe, Brazil.
The longest temperature trend during industrialisation is 40 years of COOLING from the 1930’s through 1976.
Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth and is classified as a trace gas because, at 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere, there’s bugger all of it. Nature controls the carbon dioxide level, regardless of Humans, as major global recessions in 2009 and 2020 proved. And as shown in seasonal variation of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Our atmosphere COOLS the land and ocean surfaces through conduction and convection, latent heat of evaporation and condensation and finally radiation. The atmosphere does NOT and CANNOT warm our Earth.
Natural drivers of climate variability include Galactic, Solar, Planetary, Earth’s surface topography, atmospheric, water vapour, oceanic, regional decadal cycles, biological, regional changes to vegetation, interactions.
Conclusion
Climate and energy scammers prey on people’s ignorance of variation to falsely portray natural variation as process CHANGE.
It’s NOT climate CHANGE. It’s natural climate VARIABILITY.
Alarmists are preying on people’s ignorance of Science.
In many people – especially politicians – Groupthink and peer pressure cripple reasoning. And override care.
There’s no need to worry about warmer climate. INSTEAD, worry about governance.
Application of Fraudulent Climate Claims
CSIRO’s fraudulent “GenCost” report grossly understates the cost of changing to Solar and Wind, the most expensive forms of energy generation.
CSIRO’s fraud is based on flawed assumptions about: sunk costs, interest/ discount rates, generator life expectancies, estimates of costs to build, unspecified firming costs, unknown pumped-hydro costs, …
The Liberal Labor Uniparty fail to closely scrutinise CSIRO’s GenCost report.
Solar and Wind consume enormous resources and energy during manufacture – making them expensive.
Eking energy from low-density sources makes them very expensive.
Plus, they return humanity to dependence on the vagaries of weather when promoters claim future increased weather variability.
They’re not suitable for an industrial economy such as Aluminium smelting.
Subsidies are essential and reduce national productivity and wealth creation making solar and wind parasitic.
Solar and Wind are reversing Human Progress.
There’s no scientific, economic, environmental, social, or moral case for Solar and Wind.
Who’s responsible?
Almost the whole parliament. And the federal bureaucracy.
They’re getting away with it because people are dumbed down on science. And have yet to feel the huge pain of higher electricity prices.
Members of Parliament avoid data and are not scientifically literate.
And on that is based the destruction of our economy, our country.
Other Governance Failures
The same people driving the lie about Nature’s trace atmospheric gas essential to all life on Earth, are driving other governance failures:
The Covid response across western nations.
Money and banks.
The tax system.
The Anti-Human scam: which I may discuss in more detail later
Summary
Every major problem is created in Canberra. Or is worsened there.
The core problem is that most politicians simply do not care, and are ignorant, dishonest, fraudulent, stupid or gutless.
Shoddy governance avoids or contradicts data. Instead, the Lib-Lab Uniparty uses emotion, fear, headlines, paybacks for donors and vested interests.
They justify theft from the people and cede sovereignty.
History shows government is prone to being a vehicle for transferring wealth.
How? Our constitution is armed to prevent this.
Pamela Meyer in her book “How to Spot a Liar” said, quote: “Lying is a cooperative act … Think about it, a lie has no power whatsoever by its mere utterance. Its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe the lie.”
The people have abdicated. We, the people unwittingly ceded our authority over parliament. THIS MATTERS BECAUSE IT’S THE KEY TO RESTORING OUR COUNTRY.
In Australian politics, love, care, reason and truth have been pushed aside for ego, betrayal and illogical contradiction of data.
Reason has given way to subtle control, theft, aggression and suppression.
Western politicians are reversing 170 years of remarkable human progress.
Our society, our western civilisation is in decline.
Politicians across many western parliaments have betrayed our species.
People Need:
Leadership that serves the people – based on solid data.
Freedom for personal enterprise with a small central government as Australia proved early last century. Instead, we now have less freedom than Eastern Europe and less enterprise than in China and Vietnam.
In current governance, what’s worth keeping?
Appreciation for what we have is important. Let’s keep what works.
In our Constitution the people are paramount – yet Australians are not active participants in democracy. Australians for Better Government says people should take the lead in restoring sound governance. I agree.Our constitution is not perfect, yet is largely fine.
The Senate is designed as a House of Review – yet political parties sidelined this role.
States are constitutionally responsible for most services. With that comes Competitive Federalism bringing choice and accountability. A marketplace in governance. That’s been derailed and led to an unaccountable bloated central government with the power of the purse.
Our constitution is based on Christian values – truth, freedom, respect, yet woke ideologies supplant these.
Australia has abundant resources – yet lacks leadership and vision.
Some Broad Solutions
Start with restoring compliance with our constitution. Shrink central government to fit the Constitution. Return to Competitive Federalism with states providing most government services. This will restore the marketplace in governance, essential for accountability. Enshrine free speech & Medical Rights in our constitution. Adopt Citizens Initiated Referendum to hold MP’s accountable.
Realise free humans are wonderful. The source of all enterprise and progress. Despite each of us being imperfect, remember that generally humans outside parliament do care – once we’re aware something needs action. Be pro-human. Proudly pro-human. My experience in Australia, India, America, China, Korea, Japan, Britain, Canada & other nations overwhelmingly proves that humans love to contribute when work is worthy. In meaningful work, people take responsibility and opportunity to contribute. When taking initiative to start a business, people need to share in the wealth created. Please awaken, stir and energise people to be active and to take charge.
Get government out of people’s way. Shrink the federal government. Bulldoze Canberra, a self-perpetuating, productivity-killing PARASITE. We need to get government back to enabling people to fulfil their potential.
SYSTEMS DRIVE BEHAVIOUR THAT IN TURN SHAPES ATTITUDES. We need to change governance systems to enable productive behaviours and culture.
Culture and leadership are the most powerful drivers of productivity, initiative, creativity, security.
Establish an Office of Scientific Integrity with public scrutiny of science on every policy claimed to be based on science.
We need to restore compliance with our constitution, reform our governance structure and systems and hold politicians accountable.
Australia needs real leadership. From leaders who CARE. And who want to do good, not just look good. Leaders with courage to make hard decisions and to communicate the benefits of those decisions in honest messaging that informs and excites people. Truthfully. Based on hard data.
It starts with we, the people. Since 2007 I’ve held MP’s, departments, agencies, academics, corporations and others accountable on climate. Because I detest politicians killing our country and stifling people.
We need to curtail politicians. And, we need to release the people. Freeing people to use our inherent personal enterprise.
We all want to restore our country.
I commend Australians for Better Government for your initiative.
The one thing I want everyone to remember is – why I detest most politicians, yet love and admire humans.
Instead of ego, betrayal and illogical contradiction of hard data, we need to change the governance and political SYSTEMS to restore Love, Care, Reason.
And truth.
To tap into human potential to restore human progress and abundance.
That’s OUR challenge. Restoring love, care and reason.
I dedicate this speech to Professor Tim Ball, Marc Morano, Tony Heller, my wife and family, all climate sceptics, all critical thinkers and to everyone here today.
Factors driving climate—the dynamic sun radiating to a dynamic earth FACT There appear to be hundreds, perhaps many hundreds of factors affecting global climate. These operate across many scales including the following partial list (with those likely most significant in italics):
Galactic – e.g. 150 million year cycle of our solar system passing through high cosmic wind radiation bands in our galaxy.
Solar system and sun – These are many, varied and appear highly significant for climate including variations in sun’s solar output; output of solar particles; sun’s magnetic field polarity and strength; Earth’s orbit; solar system’s centre-of-gravity; Earth’s axis tilt and precession; sun’s polarity; sun spot cycles; moon’s orbit.
Planetary – These appear to include Earth’s axis tilt; geotectonic and volcanic activity; many forms of energy including kinetic and magnetic; Earth’s polarity and movement of the poles; length of day; seasons of the year; volume of water in the global hydrological cycle; Earth’s geothermal heat flow; Earth’s interior heat source – vastly greater by many orders of magnitude than oceans as a heat sink.
Earth’s surface – e.g. topography; Earth’s surface temperatures; seasonal variations in temperature; fires; relative differentials between regions around the Earth’s surface, especially polar to tropical; photochemical -dynamical changes; sea ice; sea level; Earth’s internal constitution.
Atmospheric – e.g. variations in strength of Earth’s magnetic field – deflecting of photons; atmospheric water content; cloud cover; precipitation – rain, snow; variability in wind currents; lower and upper atmospheric temperatures and their relationships; natural aerosols (far outweigh human-made aerosols); ozone; natural mineral aerosols; atmospheric pressure; storm activity; auroral lights.
Oceanic – e.g. ocean temperature; salinity; currents; sea surface temperatures; iron content; Earth’s tides due to interaction of sun and moon.
Cyclic regional decadal circulation patterns such as North American Oscillation and the southern Pacific ocean’s El Nino together with their variation over time.
Biological – e.g. marine phytoplanckton producing natural aerosols like sea salt and dimethyl sulphide; enzyme action of microbes;
Nature’s large scale changes to vegetation.
Interactions – e.g. of wind currents and ocean currents; conversion of energy forms (eg, from sun’s e-m energy to cloud seeds); environmental processes involving the interaction of climate, biological and geological processes and, at times, extraterrestrial bombardment by meteorites; area of snow cover; heat content and transfers spatially and vertically around and within Earth; heat transfers between ocean and atmosphere and between land and atmosphere;
Water Vapour transfers spatially and vertically; release of volatiles at deep ocean vents.
Human – e.g. relatively tiny human production of aerosols (eg, soot); aircraft contrails; land use. Due to Earth’s relative enormity, the impact of human factors is restricted to local and occasionally regional.
One Nation stands firmly against the Albanese Government’s push for electric vehicles (EVs), and the billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies and infrastructure spending that overwhelmingly benefit wealthy Australians. While everyday Australians face rising costs for housing, groceries, and fuel, the government continues to pour money into EV incentives and charger installations—despite low public uptake.
Australians should be free to choose the vehicle that suits their needs and budget—whether it’s a ute, a four-wheel drive, or a V8.
One Nation would cancel all policies that penalise internal combustion engines and calls for the return of reliable, efficient petrol and diesel vehicles.
It’s time to revoke the EV slush fund and put Australians first.
Transcript
I move:
That the Industry Research and Development (Dealership and Repairer Initiative for Vehicle Electrification Nationally (DRIVEN) Program) Instrument 2024, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2024L01460].
What a mouthful! It’s an instrument made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986. This is where the fun bit starts. This regulation One Nation seeks to revoke is a $60 million slush fund that climate change and energy minister Chris Bowen—there he is again—will have to splash around on pet projects. Specifically, this is $60 million for the installation and repair of electric vehicle chargers. These are electric vehicle chargers from which only some of the most well-off of Australians, who can afford an EV, will benefit. While rents are skyrocketing, houses are more unaffordable than ever, groceries keep getting more expensive and beer is heading towards $15 a pint, taxpayers should not be slugged with more taxes to pay for this government’s slush fund.
Why is the government obsessed with putting everyone into electric vehicles? Some of them have decent speed, admittedly, when you put your foot down, yet the range on purely electric vehicles—battery electric vehicles—is mostly terrible. It gets even worse when trying to tow something. Forums for the Ford F-150 Lightning, a battery powered ute, are full of horror stories that unfold as soon as a trailer is attached. This is worldwide.
Australians already know all of this and are voting with their wallets. The rejection of battery EVs shows up in new car sales figures. Battery electric vehicles were just 6.5 per cent of new car sales, and how long have they been offered? Years. Even here, in the capital of ‘Wokeistan’, Canberra, home of the country’s loudest virtue signallers, battery electric vehicles are just 3.6 per cent of all vehicles on the road. This is despite every effort of government and multinational corporations trying to pull Australians away from the trusty petrol and diesel engine. There has been a near decade of propaganda and lies trying to convince Australians to make the switch—we’re not buying it.
Never mind the hugely expensive tax breaks that give an EV buyer tens of thousands of dollars. These tax breaks include exemptions from the lower luxury car tax threshold; exemptions from the penalties under the new vehicle efficiency standard, or the ute tax, as it has become known; no fuel excise at 50.8 cents a litre; exemptions from fringe benefits tax, representing a $12,000 saving on a $60,000 EV but costing taxpayers $550 million a year. Taxpayers pay for this. This is Robin Hood in reverse; robbing the poor to pay for the wealthy. Plus there is an array of rebates from state governments across the country. They’ve thrown just about every tax break in the book at EVs, and still Australians aren’t fussed over the inferior electric vehicle products.
More than 95 per cent of the vehicles on the road still contain internal combustion engines, the trusty petrol and diesel, the reliable petrol and diesel, the safe petrol and diesel. Naturally aspirated, turbocharged, supercharged or a hybrid set up, Australians have rightly shunned battery EVs for engines that make a noise when turned on. Tradies cried out in horror when the legendary V8, from the Toyota LandCruiser 200 series and utes, was removed from market in anticipation of the coming government regulations and crackdowns.
Are EVs cheaper to run? Well, a CarExpert road trip test throws real doubt on that. They drove two BMWs on a road trip from Melbourne to Sydney. They were the same exact car, the same year of make, with the same start and the same finish point. The only difference is that one was the battery electric version and the other was hydrocarbon fuelled. When they arrived in Sydney, the electric vehicle charging had cost more for the road trip than filling up with the most expensive 98 petrol. Of course, electricity isn’t free, and neither are these chargers. The minister’s slush fund that we’re seeking to disallow here is paying for the installation of chargers that are businesses in themselves, so we’re paying for a business. Taxpayers will foot the bill for installing a charger, and the EV business will reap all the profits from the charge they sell through it forever, for eternity. We would never do this with service stations, because it’s bloody ridiculous. Taxpayers should not be paying for the profits of these often foreign multinational companies who run charging services.
Then there’s the fire risk. Everyone knows about this. The electric vehicle industry’s dirty little secret: the batteries and these chargers present an extreme fire risk. Car ferries carrying thousands of new car deliveries have been left to burn and potentially sink after battery fires have broken out mid-ocean. Just last month, News.com reported:
There are concerns an abandoned EV carrier floating aimlessly in the Pacific Ocean could continue to burn for weeks …
Salvage operators have finally reached the Morning Midas around 350km south of Adak, Alaska, a week after it first caught fire and 22 crew were rescued by the US Coast Guard after being forced to abandon ship.
The floating inferno is said to have been caused by the lithium-iron batteries in the 70 electric vehicles on board—batteries that can cause fires that can burn for weeks.
Some apartment tower complexes have banned battery electric vehicles in their car parks. Our fire departments are sounding the alarm on the increased risk battery fires present. These battery fires often can’t be simply put out and must be left for days to burn themselves out. One suggestion to deal with an electric vehicle fire is to have the burning wreck forklifted—imagine the forklift driver!—into a waiting shipping container of water to try and keep it contained. That’s a suggestion. Seriously! That’s the best firefighting strategy we have when one of these EVs goes up.
Insurance companies have confirmed the risk in electric vehicles is real with their increased premiums. Insurance comparison site Compare the Market conducted a study of 12 insurers and has shown the top five bestselling EVs are 43 per cent more expensive to insure than similar internal combustion models. So EVs are more expensive to buy, more expensive to drive, more expensive to charge and more expensive to insure. We are running out of categories to find out where EVs are actually cheaper.
What about environmentally friendly? Let’s ask that question. As for being environmentally friendly, the process for making batteries is one of the most environmentally destructive in the world, killing the environment to save the planet. The hundreds of kilograms of minerals that go into a battery include aluminium, copper, steel, iron, graphite, nickel, lithium, manganese and cobalt. These require extremely intensive mining and refinement and huge, huge amounts of energy. The resources and energy consumed in electric vehicle manufacturing is way above those consumed in making a petrol or diesel engine car. Many of these raw minerals are sourced from conflict-torn places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, using child labourers and slaves. The overall environmental impact of building an EV is devastating, as is the social impact. The raw materials are sourced from ethically questionable countries and processed almost exclusively by Communist China controlled companies. That’s where the focus on EVs leaves Australians—completely reliant on China.
Then there’s Minister Tony Burke, whose Chinese EV says ‘Don’t plug in the phone.’ Worries about being reliant on China aren’t overblown. Government departments are warning Labor politicians of the same thing. The Strategist journal reported in November:
Senate estimates … heard the remarkable revelation that Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has had to take ‘precautions’ based on warnings from his own department to protect himself and the nation’s sensitive information from Burke’s own Chinese-made electric car—
He’s got to protect himself and the security of the country from his Chinese electric car—
The risks with such cars, according to Home Affairs officials, might include having data collected from the owner’s phone if it were connected to the car, voice calls eavesdropped on, image collection from the car’s external cameras and geolocation tracking—meaning that if Burke drove to a sensitive government location the car’s manufacturer would be able to see.
If these are risks to ministers, those same risks are inherent for all Australians. Bloody ridiculous.
What is even more confusing about the government EV push is that petrol and diesel engines are only getting better and more efficient in their newest versions. Did anyone mention weight? Electric vehicles are humongous in weight. Small, turbocharged, extremely efficient diesel engines were becoming the powertrain of choice, especially in small cars. Fuel efficiency numbers we couldn’t have dreamt of 20 years ago were being beaten. Then all the car makers in the world, and many stupid governments around the world, seemingly overnight, had to imagine that petrol vehicles and diesel engines were dead. Imagine that. Everyone would be driving an EV, apparently blind to or not caring for the downsides in range, resources and longevity. Just as we were getting to some of the cleanest, most efficient diesel and petrol vehicles ever made, why did the government decided no-one would ever want to drive them again? They decided for the taxpayers. They decided for the citizens of Australia.
Why does the government want to splash billions of dollars into technology that Australians clearly don’t want and that is environmentally reprehensible? The answer may lie in the plan for Australia’s energy grid. The government needs electric vehicles hooked up to the grid under their plans for a consumer energy resources like EV batteries to be connected to virtual power plants. They want to use your car as a battery. The government can’t afford to build all the batteries needed under their net zero plan. They don’t even know how much. There is no plan. So the government wants Australians to buy an EV with a battery that can be taken over and discharged to the grid. They don’t tell you that, do they, but that is what they are wanting. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency says that batteries from EVs ‘can help stabilise the power grid by supplying power back during times of high demand’. There it is. Do you hear that in their advertisements? No.
Like many things, this will start off as a voluntary scheme, currently called ‘bidirectional charging’ or ‘vehicle to grid’. That sounds good, but think about what it means. It means stealing your electricity when you want it. Then the inevitable threat of blackouts and the instability of the electricity grid under net zero will become an emergency, and everyone with an EV will be forced to participate. What we have now is power shortages in some states as they destroy perfectly good coal and gas generation and try and fail to replace it with solar and wind. So we’ve got a shortage of reliable electricity. And now they want to convert the car fleet, the transport fleet, to EVs to add more demand to the electricity sector. Then they want to promote artificial intelligence, which is an electricity hog. And then they want to support bitcoin mining. Where is all this going to lead? It’s going to lead to massive, sky-high prices as well as shortages, unreliability, instability and insecurity.
The government’s plan, or what it claims is a plan, is all very complicated, but they don’t know what they’re doing. That is fact. One Nation’s solution is much simpler: Australians should be allowed to drive whatever car they want, whatever car they can afford, whether it’s a four-wheel drive, a ute or a smart car. Only One Nation has a policy to cancel all policies which lead to the death of the V8 engine being provided as an option to Australian car buyers. Porsche and Mercedes-Benz said that EVs would take over, and they stopped making V8s. Now they’re bringing back V8s and they’re scaling back their EV plans. I ask the Senate to revoke this electric vehicle slush fund and join One Nation in bringing back the V8.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/251AKYjzs5I/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-07 09:24:362025-08-07 09:24:41Scrap the EV Slush Fund
One Nation is the only party completely united in our belief that Australians deserve a better, cheaper way of life by ditching Net-Zero.
Groceries, power bills, insurance and running a small business can all be made cheaper.
Only One Nation can be trusted to put Australians first over what foreign, unelected organisations tell us to do.
Transcript
To get to what matters most in this debate over net zero, we just have to ask Australians some simple questions: is your life more affordable or more expensive over the last five years? Are you paying more or less for groceries? Is your power bill cheaper? How about the cost of a new car—how about your insurance premiums? Has your salary increased more than inflation? The answers are almost the same. It hasn’t gotten better; it’s far worse. All of these problems Australia is suffering from can be traced back directly to net zero policies.
This isn’t just a culture war, as some people try to write it off as; this is a fight for the survival and prosperity of all Australians. This is a fight to restore our country’s position as the envy of the world. Australia is the richest country in the world for resources. We have abundant energy resources. Australia is awash with vast amounts of proven coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, rare earths and critical minerals. We should have the cheapest power prices in the world, yet we pay more for electricity than the countries to which we sell our resources. Back in 2004, the energy white paper proudly boasted Australia’s average price of electricity as being just a touch over 4c a kilowatt hour—amongst the cheapest in the world. Now the average is 33c a kilowatt hour, just 20 years later. Japan imports most of its energy resources from Australia. Japan’s electricity used to be four times more expensive than Australia’s. Now, ours is 20 per cent more expensive than Japan’s—all because of net zero. Thank you so much!
We don’t make Fords, Holdens, Toyotas or Mitsubishis in this country anymore, because of net zero. Our steel mills, like the one in Whyalla, are going broke because of net zero. The copper smelters, like the one in Mount Isa, are shutting down because of net zero. Chocolate-maker Cadbury have said they may have to pull out of Australia because it has become undeniably expensive to manufacture in Australia. In the words of Matt Barrie, ‘Australia is about to be a country that cannot make a chocolate bar’—because of net zero.
Wind and solar pushers have been promising Australia that it’s the cheapest way to go. They’ve been saying it for 25 years, since the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act was implemented in the year 2000, under John Howard, yet here we are today, facing desolation. With the largest amount of wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro on the grid than ever in recorded history, life has only gotten more expensive. As the solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro increase, electricity costs increase. This is the experience of every country that has gone down the path of net zero. As electricity gets more expensive, good jobs in manufacturing are getting shipped overseas and life gets worse for that country.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/M-XYa5nxCSI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-31 16:40:552025-07-31 16:41:00DITCH Net-Zero to Fix Cost of Living
Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China …
Three thousand cars are rotting at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean – 800 of them electric – after the Morning Midas cargo ship burst into flames sank on its trip between China and Mexico.
The cause of the fire remains unknown, but many suspect lithium-ion batteries may be to blame.
Morning Midas burned for a week, pouring toxic fumes into the air, before aimlessly tipping over and taking her cargo of heavy metals to the ocean floor where they will leak into the surrounding water for the next century.
All the crew are safe, thank goodness.
What about the environment?
You and I could not dump these materials into the water without severe repercussions.
Meanwhile, our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his Coalition-deputy (?) Larissa Waters, have said very little about the issue to his counterparts in China.
Albanese is off on a six-day $325 billion trade trip where he has confirmed he will meet with Xi Jinping, head of the Chinese Communist Party.
The Prime Minister has not met with US President Donald Trump – leader of the nation whose defence structure protects Australia from China’s ambitions in the Pacific.
We should not forget (and neither should the Greens, who remain silent) that China’s environmental credentials include pouring concrete over coral atolls to build military bases inside disputed waters while deliberately transgressing against its Asian neighbours.
China’s neighbours are our Pacific partners, and together we rely on America to police the Hague’s freedom of navigation rules. Without an American presence in Pacific waters, China would control our critical trade routes and no doubt treat them with the same care as their history of ransoming river water in Asia as an ‘incentive’ to sign agreements.
The Prime Minister seems very keen to empower China inside the Australian economy, encouraging foreign business prosperity at the expense of our children’s careers.
While Treasurer Jim Chalmers mulls over tax reform to punish successful Australians, Anthony Albanese is all-but gushing over the prospect of Chinese cash.
‘Trade is now flowing freely, to the benefit of both countries and to people and businesses on both sides. We will continue to patiently and deliberately work towards a stable relationship with China, with dialogue at its core. I will raise issues that are important to Australians and the region including my government’s enduring commitment to pursuing Australia’s national interest.’
He is taking 14 people with him to sit on an Australian-China business roundtable to talk about food, resources, banking, and tertiary education.
Strangely, pollution is one of the many things left off this ‘green’ economic agenda…
How odd.
There is no chance Albanese and his delegation will question China about recycling guarantees for the millions of tonnes of solar panels and wind turbines headed for Australian landfills every single year as industrial projects are decommissioned.
Whose responsibility is it to clean up after the Chinese Net Zero boom?
Australian taxpayers.
Who could have guessed?
Pollution is a sore spot with China. The communist empire courting our Prime Minister has made a mess of its own landscape.
67.7% of China’s water is unsafe for human contact, let alone consumption. Its air pollution crisis, much of which is from the factories that churn out ‘clean’ technology, is so severe it’s thought to kill two million people every year. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand are responsible for 60% of plastic in the ocean – and yet the Prime Minister is handing hundreds of millions of dollars to these countries as an apology for Australia’s (factually dubious) contribution to ‘rising sea levels’.
China is not, as the UN claims, a beacon of ‘Net Zero’ environmentalism.
If anything, China’s environmental catastrophe reveals the dirty side of the so-called renewable empire. It has led to polluted rivers, destroyed sacred mountains, slave-run factories, and an export chain that includes debt-trapping vulnerable nations with loans repaid with land acquisition, the empowerment of brutal dictatorships, and even child labour in the rare-earth mines.
In China, environmental and cultural protesters who stand against the renewable energy industry are harassed, arrested, or simply vanish.
Activists in Wuhan, famous for its dodgy gain-of-function labs, demanded the Chinese government ‘give back the green mountains and clear waters’.
Their social media posts were scrubbed and the story suppressed by digital censors.
It’s a process familiar to Australians who lived through the Great Digital Dark Age of Covid where the government saw fit to issue take-down notices to Twitter and Facebook to keep vaccine-injured victims quiet. Many of these social media sites still have legacy community guidelines that warn about the ‘misinformation’ of posts sceptical about Climate Change while Australian policy is littered with clauses determined to protect the narrative of the political movement even if it means listing environmental concern as ‘dangerous’ or ‘misleading’.
Chinese activists were not exaggerating their pollution problem, and neither are Australian farmers or beachside residents furious about the solar and wind industrial projects tearing apart the serenity of Australia’s landscape.
Soon, the curse of Net Zero will touch every corner of our continent.
The Morning Midas and Net Zero monstrosities share a fate decomposing into the landscape, poisoning everything around them – abandoned by the companies and governments responsible for their creation.
A toxic legacy left for nature to remediate.
It’s unlikely the Morning Midas will be remembered as anything other than a sidenote on the next article about a sinking EV cargo ship, but the EV problem is not going away.
Cheap Chinese vehicles are being welcomed into Australia as a market disruption by a Labor government desperate to prove that EVs can be ‘cheap’.
This is despite their questionable green credentials, service standards, and quality control.
How long will EVs stay cheap as the resources used in their manufacturing double and triple in price?
Market forces are sinking EVs, while Labor, and particularly Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, remain oblivious.
They would prefer to allow TEMU-style EVs to destabilise the auto industry, causing permanent damage, for the sake of a product that may not survive given its concerning track record in other countries. This is not good for the Australian consumer, the global environment, or the industries that support the car industry which employ many of our skilled young people.
Are we going to outsource auto-workers and mechanics to a Chinese helpline that goes unanswered?
Do we really want to keep pushing jobs and skills away in exchange for a collapsing ‘green’ dream with all the appeal of algae?
What about when these cheap cars break – which they undoubtedly will – where do they end up? In landfill, sheltering under a busted solar panel? Parked beneath a derelict wind turbine? In an abandoned shed with all the plastic we are meant to be recycling?
This is not a good look for an industry that exists purely to capitalise on environmental credentials.
It is hideous.
Electric vehicles are not better products. They are a technical solution to an ideological problem propped up by government subsidies and corporate Environment and Social Governance programs.
In this respect, EVs occupy the same ideological market space as lab-grown meat.
The third sinking of a cargo ship laden with electric cars is not a one-off event.
With Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen pushing Australia toward EVs – specifically China-made EVs – we can only wonder if the next cargo ship will sink onto the Great Barrier Reef.
EVs are a sinking ship by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China
Has the price of a steak taken your breath away recently? That’s because the government wants you eating bugs or lab grown cells, not organic red meat.
In 2022, I confronted Meat and Livestock Australia directly. They were signed up to the crazy plan of ‘net zero’ by 2030.
The only way they ever could have achieved this is by killing off cows, reducing the total number across the country. That means good farm-grown meat would be too expensive for the peasants, but the elites jetting off to Davos every year would be able to afford it.
Three years later, Meat and Livestock have just admitted they are ditching their net-zero 2030 goals, exactly like I told them to do three years ago. Yet, they’re still committed to doing it by 2050.
End the nonsense. Ditch net-zero and make meat affordable for every Aussie house!
Senator ROBERTS: In the last Senate estimates we had a difference of opinion on the direction of herd numbers, and we’ve still got that.
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I maintained that the only way to meet net zero carbon dioxide targets—and why you’d want to meet that is beyond me, because no-one has given me any proof—under Meat & Livestock Australia’s CN30 program, the Carbon Neutral by 2030 program, is to hold herd numbers at the historically low numbers experienced during the recent drought. In reply you said:
We are very aware that there have been discussions that things like the carbon neutral goal are reliant on limiting livestock numbers or reducing production or profitability, and we completely reject those.
I thank you for your answer on notice regarding herd numbers and I now reference a document you sent me—a Meat & Livestock Australia publication titled ‘Industry projections 2021: Australian cattle—July update’. On page 4 there are herd numbers. Herd size, slaughter and production are all flat—and, arguably, slightly decreasing in the last few years—across the period indicated, from 2000 to 2023, and down from their peak in this period. Am I reading that right?
Mr Strong : You may be, Senator, but I don’t have that one in front of me. What I can do is provide you with the updated projections from earlier this year, which show the projected increase in production and outputs, so increases in herd size and increases in productivity. We can provide that to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.
Mr Strong : We can certainly do that.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to what you raised earlier on, in the bottom graph carcase weights are showing an increase of 13 per cent. This does in part reflect the work done by Meat & Livestock Australia on genetics, feedbase and transport. Is that correct?
Mr Strong : In part, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Only in part? There are other factors involved?
Mr Strong : Yes—like producers’ willingness to adopt new technologies. But I think part of the increase in carcass weight comes from the increase in turn-off through the feedlot sector. An increased number of animals have come through the feedlot sector as a finishing mechanism in the last year or two. That also contributes to an increase in carcass weight.
Senator ROBERTS: Either way, it’s a good job because 13 per cent is a significant increase in productivity and profitability.
Mr Strong : Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Page 2 of this report says the average herd number for cattle from 2016 to 2021, which included a substantial drought influence, was 26,619. The best year was 2018, at 28,052. Meat & Livestock Australia’s projections are 27,223 for 2022 and 28,039 for 2023. This is down from the CSIRO’s figure of 30 million to 40 million before the drought, which was the point I was making in the last Senate estimates.
Even if the CSIRO figure is higher than you would accept, I fail to see an increase here in these figures. And I’m still trying to see where the increase in the herd numbers component of the 100 per cent increase in red meat production is coming from. Is it true that, unless the herd numbers recover to around 30 million, Meat & Livestock Australia are projecting a permanent reduction in the Australian herd?
Mr Strong : No, it’s not. The paper you’re referencing is not a CSIRO paper. Dr Fordyce is the lead author and he’s previously worked with CSIRO. It was present on their publication site but it’s not a formal CSIRO paper. But that’s an aside.
Senator ROBERTS: But he did work for you?
Mr St rong : Absolutely. And he still does work in a range of different areas. He’s been a very prominent researcher with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in northern Australia and has done quite a bit of work with MLA and our predecessors over the years.
Senator ROBERTS: So he’s pretty competent?
Mr Strong : That doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, though, does it? We could also quote other papers—
Senator ROBERTS: No. But, if he’s competent, there’s got to be a reason for not agreeing.
Mr Strong : Certainly. But other papers that have been produced by independent analysts say the herd’s even smaller than what we project.
Senator ROBERTS: Even smaller?
Mr Strong : Yes. Those papers are by private commercial analysts. They are widely read and get quoted to us as much or more than this paper does. But the herd size isn’t the only driver of productivity. As you said, it’s about being able to increase carcass weights, increase value and increase productivity. One of the things that Dr Fordyce has been involved with is the NB2 program that you mentioned. The ability to increase cows in calf, decrease cow mortality, increase calves that survive and increase weaning weight in reasonably modest levels—a decrease in cow mortality by a couple of per cent, an increase in fertility by a couple of per cent and a 10-kilo increase in weaning weight—has a material impact on northern productivity not just in numbers but also in value. The herd size is an important number to help us with our planning and projections when we look at a range of things; but it’s only one of the contributors to productivity, profitability and how we get to a doubling of value for the red meat sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Looking at agricultural producers, whether it be livestock or crops, there’s certainly a huge increase and improvement in the use of science to guide it. That’s become a wonderful productivity improvement tool. But it still comes back to basic arithmetic. If herd numbers are not growing, after allowing for improved carcass weights, the only way to increase the value of red meat production by 100 per cent, after allowing for the 13 per cent carcass weight increase, is for price increases of 87 per cent.
Mr Strong : No, it’s not. Chairman Beckett mentioned our trip to Darwin two weeks ago. One of the great things we heard about there was the use of knowledge that’s been gained over the last 10 or 20 years by the industry. There were a couple of fantastic examples of the use of phosphorus as a supplement in phosphorus-deficient country. For the same cow herd size, there was a halving in cow mortality and a 30 per cent increase in weaning rates. Herd size is not the only way to increase productivity. When you think about ways to make significant improvements in productivity, it actually becomes a minor factor. Being able to produce more from what we have, regardless of what we have, and creating and capturing more value from that is much more important than the herd size.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that it’s a laudable goal to increase the productivity, capturing more from what you have.
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if herd sizes stay flat, are you able to provide me with the breakdown of where the 100 per cent increase in red meat value will come from?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Gcu-Lo9whE8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-03 17:05:092025-07-03 17:05:21Bugs for Dinner? Not on My Watch!
Nigel Farage’s unapologetically anti-Net Zero #Reform party is making headway in Scotland.
This sounds strange.
Scotland has always been a rather left-leaning, working class, union-centric nation so for Net Zero to suddenly become a defining feature of a minor-right movement is worth a second look.
The answer is simple.
Jobs.
By 2030, it is expected that 58,000 jobs in North Sea oil and gas will be gone.
Replacing them is a meagre (and as yet unproven) 29,000 jobs in offshore wind.
There’s a real and serious concern about how many of these jobs will be filled by foreign nationals, especially as this was already happening before loopholes were closed. If offshore wind cannot convert workers locally, businesses will hire internationally.
Bureaucrats seem to believe that all forms of energy production fall under the same portfolio and that workers can wander between oil rigs and wind farms…
The truth is, just because the two industries revolve around ‘energy’ it does not follow that those employed in the oil and gas industry can change their qualifications to work in offshore wind.
Oil rig workers are highly specialised, well-trained, and experienced. Throwing their livelihoods into the dustbin in pursuit of an increasingly dodgy-sounding ‘decarbonisation’ project is starting to turn voters away from environmental fascism.
Most oil and gas workers know they’ll be forced to retire.
This is a truth Australian Unions refuse to acknowledge.
They remain prepared to throw Australian workers under the Net Zero bus.
The UK is ten years ahead of Australia when it comes to the energy ‘transition’ – and they are in a serious mess.
Net Zero has become the failure that unites Labour and the Tories.
Reform saw the truth early, and maintained its position in support of reality, workers, and sensible energy. One Nation saw the truth years before Reform even existed as a movement.
Of all the parties in the Western world on the centre-right, we were the first to warn about the dangers of Net Zero.
There is nothing modern about Net Zero. If anything, it’s an idea past its use-by date which is starting to fester and grow all sorts of nasty things.
Under Sussan Ley and David Littleproud as leaders, the partly repaired Coalition has shied away from rigorous support of Net Zero, yet they are defending ‘climate goals’ and ‘decarbonisation targets’ with the same zeal that Treasurer Jim Chalmers eyes-off super balances.
Which is the same thing.
When the next election rolls around, we will have an agreement from the major parties that Net Zero is law and the ‘transition’ is unstoppable.
Sadly, we’ll also see voters with little understanding about the source of civilisation’s trappings telling tens of thousands of young Australians who work in the coal and gas industry that they are dirty, evil, and unwanted in the ‘modern’ world.
This is not their fault. Inner-city voters have been lied to by the whole damn system, and they often lack real-world experience to combat these cruel untruths. Nor can they see the families being hurt by green policy.
The Australian Greens, for instance, want to stop fossil fuels.
Except, of course, for the coal, gas, and oil mined and shipped offshore to generate cheap energy for China so they can make solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries used in the so-called green energy revolution.
Green energy is built on fossil fuels.
This is a wasteful way of utilising Australia’s natural resources while saddling the highly skilled men and women who mine them as the villains of history.
Well, I refuse to believe that, and I refuse to allow Australian miners to be thrown out by ideologues in Canberra chasing inner-city seats.
There are 94,400 workers in the sector under 35 and 52,600 under 30.
The Greens, Labor, the Teals, and a majority of Liberals, all claim to be against this industry and yet the truth is they want these mining jobs to be shipped offshore to places like China, Africa, and the Pacific. They want someone else to benefit economically from the creation of energy and for Australians to circle the drain of consumerism until this nation becomes so dependent that it can’t so much as manufacture the shovel to dig itself out of the mess.
This is the dirty side of carbon trading.
One Nation supports Australian workers. We do not demonise them.
Our party wants young Aussies to have the same opportunity we had to turn the natural gifts of this country’s soil and rock into cheap, reliable energy for other Aussie families – including those who live in the city.
From miners to retail workers, energy is the foundation of a safe, affordable, and prosperous country.
94,400 young Aussie miners at risk by Senator Malcolm Roberts
This article was first published on my Substack. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, consider subscribing to get future posts delivered straight to your inbox.
Australia has abundant natural resources, yet the Labor-Liberal uniparties want to DESTROY our prosperity with Net Zero policies!
One Nation says NO to this madness. It time our resources were used for cheaper energy and Australian jobs! It’s time to end this attack on Aussie families!
