Posts

Bugs for Dinner? Not on My Watch!

,

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!

Meat and Livestock Australia drops 2030 carbon neutral target | The Australian

Transcript

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?

Mr Strong : We can provide you with some.

/5 Comments/by

94,400 Young Aussie Miners at Risk

,

How Net Zero Threatens the Next Generation!

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

How Net Zero threatens the next generation

Read on Substack

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.

/4 Comments/by

Net Zero Policies Are Costing Us—Let’s Change Course

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!

/2 Comments/by

Ditch Net Zero – Deliver Savings to Australians

,

During a recent “question time” in the senate, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change about the total cost of the net zero transition. In her absence, Minister Watt responded, estimating the cost to be between $120 billion and $130 billion. However, this figure is significantly lower than other estimates, such as Bloomberg’s $1.9 trillion.

Minister Watt claims that the government’s plan is the cheapest way to meet our future power needs. Yet, he couldn’t provide a clear figure for the taxpayer money being spent on this transition.

This lack of transparency is concerning, especially when wasteful government spending is feeding inflation and the budget remains in deficit.

One Nation is committed to holding the government accountable and ensuring that Australians know the true cost of these policies. We need a government that values transparency and makes decisions based on the best interests of the people. One Nation will ditch net-zero so that we can put more money back in your pocket.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change, Senator McAllister. Minister, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister is away up north, so your question is to Minister Watt. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Watt, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. Yes, I’m representing Senator McAllister who represents Minister Bowen, while she’s in Townsville for the floods. Given I am the representing minister, I’m just waiting to have those figures handed to me. But I know that we have had that transition costed, and it’s in the order of $120 billion to $130 billion. That’s my understanding. Importantly, the CSIRO—an organisation I know you haven’t got an enormous amount of time for but the most reputable science organisation in the country—and the Australian Energy Market Operator, who probably knows more about the energy market than any other group within Australia, have both made clear that ensuring that we meet our future power needs with renewables backed up by gas and firmed by batteries is the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs going forward. 

I wasn’t too far off the mark. AEMO’s integrated system plan found that the net present value under a step-change scenario towards a renewable based system is $122 billion. Of course, that’s significantly lower than the figure it will cost for Mr Dutton’s nuclear program. As I said, people as reputable in this country as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have both found that it’s not just environmental benefits that we get from meeting our power needs through renewables going forwards but it’s actually the cheapest way we can do so as well. That’s the direct answer to your question—it’s $122 billion. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me make the question easier. Minister, how much taxpayers’ money is the government spending on the net zero transition across forward estimates? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don’t have a figure just for the forward estimates, being the next four years. But, as I said, the cost of delivering our power network into the future under the government’s plan is $122 billion in net present value terms. 

Now, I know there is another plan out there. But is it really a plan, or, as Senator Canavan revealed, is it just a political fix? Whatever it is, that nuclear plan from Mr Dutton costs $600 billion. We know that means that power prices will go up by about $1,200 per household per year. And we know that, to fund that $600 billion that is required for the nuclear program, Mr Dutton will have to put in place very big cuts to things like Medicare, energy support, cost-of-living relief, housing, pensions and all manner of other things to fund the most expensive form of power you can provide. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Bloomberg has put the cost of Australia’s net zero transition at $1.9 trillion. One Nation uses a consensus figure of $1.5 trillion. Across forward estimates, the budget is in deficit. Wasteful, undisciplined government spending is feeding inflation. And you can’t even tell me how much will be spent on net zero across the forward estimates. Minister, will you at least give an undertaking to table, on the first day of the March sitting, the figure for the total cost of the net zero transition, including the forward estimates? 

Senator WATT: Well, I’ve already provided the figure of $122 billion. I’m not across the Bloomberg estimate that you cite, Senator Roberts, and I’m certainly not across the One Nation consensus figure. I assume that’s a consensus between you and Senator Hanson—you’ve had to sort of thrash that one out between the two of you and arrived at a consensus of $1.5 trillion! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: I’m happy to answer Senator Watt’s question. 

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps some other time, thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator WATT: Maybe James Ashby was in there as well, with the calculator going, working out a consensus figure. And I certainly don’t know what assumptions underpinned the One Nation/James Ashby/Senator Hanson/Senator Roberts consensus figure. But the fact is that the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs into the future—as cited by AEMO and the CSIRO, our most eminent scientific body—is at a cost of $122 billion. That is the cheapest way we can meet our power needs, which I think is a very good reason for any government, no matter what their political party, to pursue it. 

/4 Comments/by

Exposing the True Cost of Net Zero

,

What is the true cost of the net zero transition? Minister Watt had previously provided a figure of $122 billion, but this figure was significantly discounted and left out substantial elements of the cost, which Frontier Economics estimates to be over $650 billion. One critical omission was the cost of behind-the-meter power, which involves taking power from people’s wall batteries and electric vehicles.

When I pressed for details, Senator McAllister reiterated the government’s reliance on expert advice from AEMO. However, bombshell freedom of information documents revealed that AEMO was instructed by the government to take net zero as a forced assumption, despite claims of independence. This raises a crucial question: could an even cheaper grid be built if we ditched net zero?

The reality is that Australia’s electricity prices have never been higher, despite increasing installations of wind, solar, and batteries over the past 20 years. South Australia, the wind and solar capital of Australia, has seen spot prices averaging $200 per megawatt hour for the last quarter. It’s clear that the current approach is pushing Australia into poverty.

One Nation is committed to exposing the truth and advocating for policies that prioritise the well-being of Australians. We need a government that is transparent and accountable – one that makes decisions based on the best interests of the people, not political agendas.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. On Monday, Minister Watt provided a figure for the cost of the net zero transition to the economy at $122 billion. AEMO discounted the $500 billion cost by 7 per cent a year, producing a figure of just $122 billion. This left out substantial elements of the cost, which Frontier Economics puts at over $650 billion. There was no allowance for behind-the-meter power, where you go in and take power out of people’s wall batteries and EVs. Minister, what is the cost of this behind-the-metre cost to households and businesses that you have left out of the net zero costs?  

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts yet again asks for more detail— 

Senator Cash: Yes, give us more detail! 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

Senator McALLISTER: when questioning a publication that is in the public domain— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! This is Senator Roberts’s question. He’s entitled to a response, and the minister is entitled to silence. Minister McAllister, please continue. 

Senator McALLISTER: Thanks very much, President. I can inform Senator Roberts, as I have in the past, that the government’s approach is to rely on the advice of experts, and the experts at AEMO conduct intensely detailed, publicly available, engaged work with a community of experts to cost the transition for our power system to 2050. I will say that they provided information publicly again and again and again saying that the cheapest path to 2050 to meet our electricity system requirements lies in renewables firmed by batteries and other forms of storage and by gas. I will say, though, Senator Roberts, that the approach we take, which is to listen to the experts and provide significant amounts of detail in the public domain for scrutiny, is quite different to the approach taken by your party. I have checked the One Nation website. You’ve actually done some policy work over the summer. There were 88 words worth of policy on energy and energy prices previously on the One Nation website; it’s down now, I understand, to 33 words or thereabouts. It used to say that you were committed to building low-emission, coal-fired power plants. You’ve now moved to a new variation on this, which says that you’re going to change the NEM rules to incentivise coal- and gas-fired power. But I make this point: to your credit, it’s a deal more detail than those opposite have provided. The people opposite have proposed a risky nuclear system which they cannot find an expert willing to back. It is $600 billion worth, on the taxpayer tab, with no plan for how to pay for or deliver it— 

The PRESIDENT: The time for answering has expired. Order! Senator Ayres, I have called the chamber to order. That includes you. Senator McKenzie! I think I’ve called you to order enough times this question time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister—rely on experts, eh? Bombshell freedom of information document show that AEMO was directly instructed by your government to take net zero as a forced assumption, despite your claims AEMO’s process was not independent of Labor’s political agenda. It’s true, isn’t it, that an even cheaper grid could be built if we ditched net zero, but your government told AEMO they could not look at that. 

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts misunderstands the process that AEMO goes through. AEMO has and has been very clear about the process they undertake to work through the issues associated with replacing and fixing up the mess that was created by those opposite. When those opposite left office, the average wholesale energy price was $286 a megawatt hour. Just like we inherited a 6.1 per cent inflation rate, which they don’t take responsibility for, they won’t take responsibility for the mess that they left either. They know exactly what was going on. Prices were going up, and what did Mr Taylor do at that time? He went off to the Governor-General to make arrangements to hide that price increase from the Australian people before an election. What a disgrace. There is a lot of work to do to resolve the mess that was bequeathed to the Australian people by those opposite, and we are up for it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you talked about Liberal policy; I want to know about Labor policy. Australia has been installing more and more wind, solar and batteries onto the grid for 20 years, and electricity prices have never been higher. South Australia, the wind and solar capital, has spot prices averaging $200 per megawatt hour for the last quarter. When will you admit the truth—that your net zero is pushing Australia into poverty? 

Senator McALLISTER: That statement is simply incorrect. The prices that are reflected in the way Australians experience their bills are not to do with the spot price. They are an average price from all of the prices that are experienced within the National Electricity Market. The truth is that renewables remain the cheapest form of new generation. We’ve got a lot of work to do. These guys managed the electricity system—or mismanaged it—for over a decade. There were 22 policies. Four gigawatts of dispatchable generation left the grid; only one came on. That actually causes a problem that requires resolution. When we left office, prices were very, very high. There was no plan at all, and our government is working through the necessary steps to put in place the generation to secure Australia’s interests into the future. 

/3 Comments/by

Nationals confirm commitment to Net-Zero DESTRUCTION

,

Here’s the deputy leader of the Nationals confirming their party is 100% committed to the country-wrecking net-zero.

That means net-zero farms, net-zero trucks, net-zero red meat, net-zero diesel. The Nationals are the party of destroying the bush.

/1 Comment/by

Net Zero Destroys, It Doesn’t Deliver

Australia’s political class is not putting Australians first.

The Nationals and Liberals are more interested in fighting each other than actually putting forward something that will benefit the country – cheaper power and cheaper groceries by ditching Net-Zero.

Interview with @empactnews

Transcript

Australian leaders, to be good, to be effective, have to put Australia’s interest first. That is the theme that drives Pauline and myself.

You know, Pauline has a very simple political philosophy. Is it in Australia’s interest?

David Littleproud’s net zero, it’s his baby, is not in Australia’s interest. It is counter to Australia’s interest. It is death to Australia’s energy sector, death to manufacturing, death to our environment with solar and wind turbines destroying the environment.

You know these people are pushing up solar and wind to protect the planet while killing the environment. I mean, this is insane. On environmental grounds, on farm and food security grounds, on economic grounds, on energy grounds. Every which way we look, this is rubbish. And to make it worse, it’s all based on the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull.

You know there is no evidence to back it up.

/4 Comments/by

$2.15 Billion in Subsidies: The Hidden Costs of “Cheap” Renewables

,

During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned ARENA about their massive spending of taxpayer money. The numbers are staggering – they’ve now committed $2.15 billion in subsidies to supposedly “cheap” renewable projects.

Despite claims that solar is “the cheapest form of electricity generation in history,” Australians’ power bills tell a different story. The reality is they don’t account for all the extra costs of firming, storage, transmission lines and general unreliability. This is what happens when government agencies focus on pushing unreliable renewables instead of ensuring affordable power for Australian families.

We used to have some of the cheapest electricity in the world, but these massive subsidies and failed green energy policies are driving up costs for everyone.

The net zero fantasy is already hurting our regions, ruining small businesses, and driving up the cost of living across Australia. It’s time to ditch these wasteful subsidies and return to reliable, affordable power.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever think about how much taxpayer money your agency has spent on net zero policies, only for power bills to continue to get more expensive? 

Mr Miller: Senator, that doesn’t occupy much of my time. We’re working on innovation to help lower the cost of the core technologies that go into lowering power bills in the long term. And, as you would appreciate, this innovation cycle takes a while. We’ve obviously seen the success of solar PV, which was maybe written off many years ago, but has come through as the lowest cost form of generation in history, as we’ve noted in past conversations. I’m very confident, actually, that wind technology, solar technology and battery technology, which is coming down the cost curve rapidly, combined at scale will actually reduce energy costs for Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your job to bring down power bills or give money to solar and wind energy? How much does the Australian Renewable Energy Agency currently administer in deployed capital in terms of loans or equity stakes? 

Mr Miller: The objects of ARENA, the agency, are set out in the act. They are to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, increase the supply of renewable technologies and support Australia’s decarbonisation emissions reduction objectives. You’d be aware that we’re a granting agency, so none of our funding is provided through debt and equity. It’s all through the provision of grants. In some circumstances, those grants are recoupable based on performance of the projects, and we make that decision on a case-by-case basis. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How much did ARENA issue in grants in the most recent year? 

Mr Miller: I can get you that in a minute or two. My colleague Mr Faris could probably find that number in the pack. When we think about the progress of our work in terms of project projects, we look at approval rates, which is the key milestone for ARENA when I, under my delegation, or our board, or the minister— 

Senator ROBERTS: Getting a project to approval stage. 

Mr Miller: When we provide an approval, we then, in most circumstances, are working through to a contract, which ultimately lands to be grant money flowing. But that can take months and years in some cases. But I think in the last financial year we provided approvals of $497 million, and I think in the year before it was $540 million. So, per our annual report: funds approved in 2023-24 total $445 million, and contracts written, which is a later stage, were $392.5 million in that financial year. 

Senator ROBERTS: So what did you call your key measurable indicator? 

Mr Miller: Approvals. Well, it’s one of many, but, yes, that’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you categorise as an approval? 

Mr Miller: An approval is a decision by the CEO, the board or the minister, with respect to their relative delegations, to provide funding to a particular project in that amount. 

Senator ROBERTS: Approve the funding? 

Mr Miller: Approve funding, yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what your total budget allocation is over the forward estimates, the next four years? 

Mr Miller: That will be in the PBS, and we will get that number for you if we can. Otherwise, we’ll take it on notice and provide it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that located in one area? Are all the different components of the money located in one area? 

Mr Miller: It’s an aggregation of various programs and funding pools that we have been provided with by the government over time. Well, let me say governments because we were well supported by the coalition government a number of years ago, and have been even further supported by this government. But it relates to what we call our baseline funding, which is the money that is provided to ARENA where ARENA’s board, essentially, is the primary decision-maker on policy and programmatic objectives. And then, in addition, there are about a dozen programs that ARENA is running, with specific funding amounts, and with specific instructions through the policy instruments, and we’re managing all of that through the funding. But it all gets amalgamated, ultimately, into the forward estimates amounts. So I’d be very happy to read you the figures in the forward estimates for each year, revenue from government, if that would help you. The current year’s revenue from government is $425 million. The budget for next year is $709 million. The year after that, it is $735 million. Then we’re at $1.1 billion, and then we’re at $1.117 billion for the final year of the forward estimates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a lot of money. 

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ever since ARENA came on the scene—when was that?—you’ve been issuing grants and loans in solar and wind. Have people’s power bills actually got cheaper? 

Mr Miller: It’s not my jurisdiction to talk about power bills, but we came on the scene on 1 July 2012, and as I— 

Senator ROBERTS: In 2012? 

Mr Miller: Yes, 2012, and, as I mentioned before, we don’t do loans. We do grants. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t do loans—well, issuing grants then. So you’ve been spending billions of  

dollars, and power bills have gone up. 

Senator Ayres: Well, Senator, you should— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Miller. You don’t need to— 

Senator Ayres: Yes, and I’m entitled to drop in from time to time. It’s one of the inconvenient bits of  

estimates for senators who ask questions. If you go and talk to your constituents in the main street of a country town somewhere in Queensland— 

Senator ROBERTS: Which is what I’ll do. 

Senator Ayres: Yeah, I know. We saw you beaming in. But if you talk to them and then listen to the answer that they give you—engage in a conversation—what you’ll find is that many of them have solar technology on their roofs, which substantially decreases their electricity costs. 

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I actually was talking to a shopkeeper yesterday, and she said— 

Senator Ayres: Fascinating as that is, I am just going to keep answering your question. 

Senator ROBERTS: power bills have gone up tremendously. 

Senator Ayres: That is technology that was invented in Australia. All of the IP in solar panels all around the world—it’s Australian, right? It’s something that we should be proud of as a country—invented here, substantially reducing costs for households, with some of them earning a quid because they are under residual agreements. 

Senator ROBERTS: Without your subsidies, without your energy relief, the costs would be higher than ever. 

CHAIR: Okay. And we are running out of time. 

Senator Ayres: They are substantially benefiting from that technology. Now, it’s different for different households. Our job as a government is to make sure that the lowest-cost technology is in the system, and also to make sure that more of those Australian inventions are commercialised here in Australia and manufactured in Australia, and Mr Miller and ARENA’s work is to make sure that more of that technology is commercialised in Australia, and they’re doing a very good job indeed. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your policies are driving up prices 

/7 Comments/by

Price Hike: The Cost of Green Energy Policies on Australian Power Bills

,

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike – between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we’ve been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up!

I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning – they recently added “emissions reduction” to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn’t have been approved before – they couldn’t name a single one!

The truth is clear: We’ve gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren’t accidents – they’re the direct result of failed green energy policies.

Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signalling that drives up costs for families and businesses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The default market offer for electricity prices is going up yet again. You published a draft notice, I understand, contemplating rises between 2.5 per cent and 8.9 per cent. For 20 years, Australians have been told that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy, yet electricity prices are going up again. Mr Oliver, are you seeing any kind of indications in the bill stack that show you will be able to actually cut the default market offer for electricity prices in the near future?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few different components, as you mentioned, in that stack that go to comprise the default market offer. It is ultimately, of course, only the benchmark offer that’s applicable to standing offer contracts. That’s less than 10 per cent of customers in most regions. Most pay less, of course, because they’re on market offer contracts, which typically sit under those default levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is representative, isn’t it?  

Mr Oliver: Not representative, no. I’d say it’s more of a safety net. So it’s more at the upper end of what most consumers would pay. For example, a customer might not have gone into the market, not shopped around for a market offer, and might be on a standing offer contract. As I say, that’s generally less than 10 per cent. But the vast majority of consumers pay less than the default market offer price. Indeed, the ACCC put out a report in December last year as part of their electricity price monitoring saying that roughly 80 per cent of consumers could pay even less than they are today if they continue to shop around.  

Senator ROBERTS: So do you see any signs of the default market price coming down?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few key components. The biggest variable is wholesale cost. Network costs are reasonably steady year on year. Retail costs have gone up, at least in our draft decision this year, but we’re still studying those. In terms of the wholesale cost component, we have seen over the last year some high-price events in the spot market, some volatility in the spot market. That is continuing to put upward pressure on the forward contract market, the prices that ultimately are responsible for setting a lot of the wholesale energy cost. They’re difficult to predict year on year. We don’t necessarily see them continuing to increase. If market conditions alleviate, that wholesale cost can potentially come down. We will, of course, look at those again more closely before we put out our final decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was going to be this, but I think you’ve answered it: in the data you’re seeing, is there any realistic hope that electricity prices can go back down to what they were five years ago under the current policy settings?  

Mr Oliver: Well, it’s a question of time. We don’t anticipate that kind of decline between now and the final decision. But there are obviously plans in place to continue the rollout of renewable generation and other forms of generation as well across the energy market, across the NEM, and, as we see more of that generation capacity coming into the system, that will alleviate pressure on wholesale costs. There’s work underway at the moment to look to orchestrate and utilise all of the consumer energy resources that we have in the system at the moment—20 gigawatts of rooftop solar, for example, which could be utilised more effectively to also bring down those wholesale costs as well. There are various ways. It’s a number of pieces that need to be looked at to do that. But yes, all of those trends will, over time, see the wholesale cost of energy come down.  

Senator ROBERTS: So those trends will help reduce the full bill stack?  

Mr Oliver: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions reduction was recently added to the national electricity objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. Can you provide an example of a project that went ahead after the emissions objective was added that would have been rejected under the previous objectives, or a project that was prioritised higher?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one specific project that would meet that criterion. We would probably need to take that on notice to see if we could identify one. It is, as you described the objective quite correctly, one that has a number of different facets. So, whenever one is making a decision that requires the application of that objective, it’s about weight and deciding how various things are taken into account. What the amendment does is say quite explicitly that one of the things to be considered is emissions targets and objectives that are enshrined in policy and legislation, but that doesn’t necessarily point to a project which then gets up that might have otherwise failed. I can’t think of one now, but we might take that on notice as well, just to confirm that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you had four factors: quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. You’ve had added now emissions reduction. So you can’t see any project that has been brought forward because of emissions reduction at the moment?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one now. I’m glancing at my colleagues and they’re not nodding either, but we’d perhaps take that on notice just to see. It may well be that the answer would be that there’s no project that would meet that specific criterion. It affects other things of course, in terms of proposals for expenditure in a network proposal, for example. There might be a stronger case for investment in a particular area that might otherwise not have been as strong a case. But those are very complicated and multifaceted decisions where you’re looking at a lot of different things.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the relative weights of those now five criteria? 

Mr Oliver: We don’t do it in any specific quantitative sense. If, for example, it is an expenditure proposal, we would be looking at the driver behind the proposal, why the network, if it is a network project, says that they wish to undertake that expenditure, who they’ve consulted with, which of the objectives they’re trying to meet, and whether they’re doing it at the most efficient cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/3 Comments/by

Media Release: One Nation to Protect Forestry Jobs in Queensland

One Nation to protect forestry jobs in Queensland, as part of our policy to make Australia self-sufficient in timber and help address Labor’s national housing crisis.

Media ReleaseDownload

/2 Comments/by