Posts

A Masterclass in Buck-Passing

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

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

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

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

Mr Barnes: No.

Senator ROBERTS: What about your role in that?

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: That is 5.5 gigawatts.

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: How much is available?

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

Senator ROBERTS: You mean receive it?

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Or a battery.

Mr Barnes: We back that insurance with physical assets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator DEAN SMITH: I thought that was last week!

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

Mr Barnes: What is the question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: And threatening coal.

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Your Labor government. Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

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

Snowy Hydro 2.0 – The whitest white elephant in Australia

, ,

Despite promises of being one of the world’s largest batteries for only $2 billion dollars, Snowy 2.0 is shaping up to cost over $10 billion and only supply a fraction of promised capacity.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak about the Auditor-General’s performance audit titled, No. 33—Performance audit—Snowy 2.0 governance of early implementation: Snowy Hydro Limited.

Some background for those who may be new to this project: Snowy 2.0 is an extension of the Snowy Hydro project, hence the name. In 2017, Prime Minister Turnbull announced the cost of Snowy 2.0 as $2 billion. This report states that the cost is now $5.1 billion plus billions of other costs, totalling well over $10 billion. The completion date is out to 2025, so we can expect further cost blowouts. The project involves using electricity from unreliable sources like wind and solar to pump water from a lower reservoir, Talbingo Dam, through underground pipes to an upper reservoir, Tantangara Dam. Water is then sent back down to Talbingo Dam, generating electricity on the way. Snowy 2.0 is referred to as a ‘big battery’ because water is stored in the top reservoir until it is needed. The same turbine is either pumping water uphill or generating electricity from the water coming down. The total pipe length is 27 kilometres. Generally, water is pumped up during the day—provided the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. The water is then released down the pipe to generate electricity in the evening peak, when it’s most needed. As the sun does not shine and wind goes quiet at night, pumping water back up the hill overnight, ready for the morning peak, will need coal power. The upper reservoir may hold multiple days worth of water and, at some point, the dam must be refilled, especially as Tantangara Dam is currently only 17 per cent full.

Pumped hydro only works when the dam has water in it. For every megawatt of power generated by water coming down the hill, the turbine needs 1.3 megawatts of power to get the water back up, because of losses. In total, 30 per cent more coal is used in Snowy 2.0. Pumped hydro, put simply, entails generating electricity 2.3 times to be used by consumers once. This is not cheap electricity; it’s actually really expensive electricity. The solar and wind fairy tale needs pumped hydro as a way of storing unreliable wind and power generation, which occurs mostly during the day, and moving that capacity to the evening peek, when unreliable solar and wind can’t provide baseload power.

Maximum generation for Snowy 2.0 is an impressive 2,000 megawatts, but here’s the catch: annual generation is listed in this report as 350,000 megawatt hours. Running at full capacity, Snowy 2.0 will generate electricity for only 175 hours a year. To put that into perspective, my home state of Queensland used 68 million megawatt hours last year. Snowy Hydro will contribute the equivalent of half of one per cent of Queensland’s power each year, one-tenth of one per cent of Australia’s annual generation, at a cost of $5 billion and rising—and that doesn’t include all the costs. This madness will send us broke. There’s a far better way: a 2,000-megawatt coal-fired power station is able to run at 2,000 megawatts 98 per cent of the time, 24/7. Liddell in the Hunter Valley generated nine million megawatts last year.

For less than the cost of this green fairy tale called Snowy 2.0, a coal plant can produce at least 25 times the amount of electricity. That’s why Germany’s Greens coalition government is turning Germany’s coal-fired power stations back on. Shutting ours down when we see what’s happening in the rest of the world is criminal irresponsibility. Prime Minister Albanese is promising reduced electricity prices while at the same time building horribly expensive power generation. The Prime Minister’s agenda will fail, and he will take Australia down with him. Instead, One Nation will build baseload power stations, reduce the cost of electricity, restore grid reliability, restore grid stability, restore Australian manufacturing and restore the income of working Australians.

/3 Comments/by

Prime Minister backstabs the people who voted for him

,

The Prime Minister has caved on an election promise. After telling Australia the truth to get elected, that Bill Shorten’s net zero target would destroy the country, he has signed up to the exact same promise. Gutless, sellout, liar, there aren’t enough words to fully describe this backstabbing of the Australian people.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:39): Well, well, well, the Labor Party, as part of the precursor to the Albanese-Bandt coalition government, calls this a stunt. The Labor party is exactly correct. It is a stunt. The No. 1 issue here is integrity and the Greens’ complete lack of integrity. They have never provided the empirical scientific evidence for their claims. First it was Greta: ‘We’ll rely on Greta.’ Then it became, ‘We’ll rely on the Queen.’ Now, it’s, ‘We’ll rely on the Pope’—and most of them are atheists. My goodness, what are we coming to in this country? This mob is hijacking jobs—manufacturing jobs, coalmining jobs, farmers’ jobs. This is an absolute disgrace, because they show no integrity towards the people of this country; they show no integrity towards this parliament, none whatsoever. They tell lies and they make up stuff.

We now see them calling for the science. I want the science. I challenge Senator Waters to provide the empirical scientific evidence that proves carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut. She failed to provide it 11 years ago. She ran—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, on a point of order?

Senator Thorpe: A point of order, Mr President: the senator over here has called us ‘liars’, and I think that is unparliamentary, is it?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, he was referring to the Greens as a whole. My view is that that is not unparliamentary. I will check with the Clerk to be sure, given I’m relatively new to this role. My ruling is correct. Please sit down, Senator Thorpe.

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, there is no point of order. Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s make it clear: I did not call the Queen or the Pope a liar. I called them ‘not scientists’. They’re not scientists. But this is what the Greens rely on in the fact that they cannot provide the science. The Greens show no respect for science, no respect for humanity, no respect for the people of this country, no respect for hardworking Australians, and no respect for the farmers that they will gut with this 2050 net zero.

I also remind the Senate that it’s now day 772 since I challenged Senator Larissa Waters and Senator Di Natale in this parliament to a debate on the empirical evidence and also on the corruption of the science. I point out that there is no science that backs this up from the CSIRO, and I’ll have more to say about that next week. There is no science from the Bureau of Meteorology, none from the Chief Scientist—I can tell you a story about the previous Chief Scientist if there is time—none from the Australian Academy of Science and none from the IPCC. In fact, we had the Labor Party’s Kevin Rudd dancing around in 2007 saying 4,000 people in white lab coats endorsed his claim. The reality is that only five academics in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorsed the claim of warming, and there’s doubt those five were even scientists.

We’ll hear more rubbish from the Greens, claiming that they have science, but the one thing that they are always consistent on is that they never produce the empirical evidence to justify their claim. They see a picture of a tree frog, a picture of a koala, a picture of a dolphin, and they say, ‘This is the science.’ That’s it; it’s complete rubbish. This has been going on for 11 years, Senator Waters.

Let me point out, Senator Gallagher, that the issue of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament, the integrity of this country, the integrity of state parliaments, and the integrity of the people of this country and their jobs and their livelihoods. That is of utmost importance to One Nation, and I wish it were of utmost importance to every single person in this Senate, but clearly it’s not.

/1 Comment/by

$19 Billion dollars a year – for nothing!

,

While the Liberal/National party tears itself apart over net-zero and Labor wants us to follow the Greens off a renewable cliff, Australians are paying BILLIONS of dollars for subsidies that are making electricity more expensive and killing manufacturing jobs. We have the best and cheapest coal in the world right here, yet our electricity prices are three times as high as China. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think it was deliberate sabotage from our gutless leaders.

Transcript

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The core issue here is integrity. We see the Nationals Party and the Liberal Party tying themselves in knots, the coalition unravelling, according to some, the coalition all over the place, according to others. Depends who we listen to. But the core issue is the complete lack of integrity from the Labour Party and the Greens. This parliament, according to Senator McAllister, has seen all manner of scrutiny. Oh, really?

I can remember Senator MacDonald up here, standing, Senator Ian MacDonald, when he was a Senator here, standing up saying that this parliament has never, ever debated the climate science. Never. So this is all being done on nonsense. In fact, the science has never even been brought into this chamber that says we need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, that we need to go to renewables. Never. Always the parliament tends to go to the second question, how do we do it, rather than should we do it?

The core question, if we’re really being faithful to and serving the people of this country and the taxpayers and the energy users who are being bled dry, is should we do this madness, not how do we do it. How do we do it comes second. The parliament too often in this country goes to the second question.

No one, no one has ever presented the empirical scientific evidence in this parliament, either House, that says carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. It is now day 770 since I asked Senator Richard Di Natale and Senator Larissa Waters a fundamental question. Where is your empirical scientific evidence that shows carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut? That’s it. They dodged it. They have never come back with the evidence.

They refuse to debate me. I asked Senator Waters this more than 10 years ago, almost 11 years ago. In fact, it is 11 years ago this month. And she refused to debate me then. Senator Waters then talked about a waste of money. Oh, really? When we’re spending $19 billion a year on this rubbish, destroying our energy sector, destroying manufacturing jobs, exporting them to China.

We send them our coal. They generate electricity using our coal after we’ve shipped it thousands of kilometres. And they sell it for 8 cents a kilowatt hour. We use the same coal here in this country, some of the best coal in the world, and we sell our electricity at 25 cents a kilowatt hour. Why the difference?

Why is it three times as much here? Because of all the renewable regulations, subsidies and climate rubbish. That’s why. Not only do we export our coal, we export our manufacturing jobs, because the number one cost of manufacturing these days is electricity. Not labour anymore. Electricity. We’re gutting jobs, throwing people on the scrap heap. No livelihoods. For nothing. Because no one has ever presented the science that says we need to do this. They run from it.

In One Nation we welcome the debate. We welcome a debate on the science. We will welcome putting both coalitions, the Liberal Nationals and the Labour Greens coalitions, under scrutiny. The policies of the Liberal Nationals coalition are so close to the policies of the Labour Greens coalitions. Where’s the difference, I ask you, other than in slightly in degree?

This is an absolute disgrace with what we’re doing to this country, what this parliament is doing to this country, what this parliament is doing to the taxpayers, what this parliament is doing to jobs of real people, everyday Australians’ jobs getting gutted. And it’s based on a lie. And Al Gore’s making out like a bandit, because the crook has made hundreds of millions of dollars out of this scam, along with several other people, academics, politicians, government agencies.

It just goes on and on and on. This has got to stop.

/2 Comments/by