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

Protecting Corporate Mates, Not Consumers

,

Why is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for their corporate mates with every piece of legislation?

This Bill – the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2025 – is another step toward letting powerful corporations, including foreign multinationals, continue to gouge Australians. By removing the regulator from the ACCC’s oversight, Labor is effectively hiding the energy market from competition and consumer protections.

This isn’t a market; it’s a bureaucratic racket designed to transfer wealth from hardworking Australians to parasitic billionaires under the cover of the “Net Zero” scam.

Worst of all, regulators will no longer be required to disclose their personal financial interests. This is a green light for cronyism.

We know over 80% of Australians are paying too much for electricity, yet Labor protects the profits of their wind and solar mates over the welfare of Australian families.

I will always put everyday Australians before corporations and will continue to fight for lower power bills for every Australian.

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge the over 300 community groups across Australia fighting the rollout of industrial-sized wind and solar projects — the so-called “renewable” energy projects. The only thing renewable about them is that they have to be replaced every 15 years.

Among the many Australians standing up across our country, I recognise:

  • Katy McCallum, Steven Nowakowski (what a man!), Grant Piper, and Emma Bowman.
  • Bill Stinson, Sandra Burke, Steven Tripp, Andrew Weidemann, and Katherine Meyers.

These people are for Australia, for the regions, and for every citizen.

I also recognise a list of true champions for Australia: Colin Boyce, Llew O’Brien, Ben Abbott, Alex O’Brien, Michaela Humble, Michelle Hunt, Lynette LaBlack, and Rafe Champion.

Finally, my thanks to:

  • Neil Kilion, Sasha McNaughton, Caroline Emms, Nikki Kelly, Alex Nichol, Martine Shepherd, and Scott Baxter.
  • The Bob Brown Foundation (thank you, Bob!), the IPA, Rainforest Reserves, and the Centre for Independent Studies.
  • Ben Beattie and Aidan Morrison, two giants of the energy sector.

Transcript

Why is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for their corporate mates with every piece of legislation? This bill before us, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2025, will likely pass without a whimper. You won’t hear much about it from either side of politics. Yet it’s another step towards a handful of powerful corporations, including foreign-owned multinationals, continuing to gouge Australians at every turn. This legislation separates the Australian Energy Regulator to establish them as fully independent and separate. The Energy Regulator currently lives in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s house, the ACCC. The ACCC supplies staffing and resources to the Energy Regulator to help it discharge its functions. While the bill frames the ACCC’s oversight as a problem, having the competition regulator ultimately responsible for energy market oversight is a very good thing. 

Ending energy market oversight is terrible. The energy market so-called ‘market’ is one of the most prescriptive and rigid areas of bureaucratic government. It’s not a market; it’s a racket—a bureaucratic racket. The risk for corruption and monopolisation is extreme. The Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, operates our entire electricity grid. It sounds like a government agency, yet somehow it’s a private body. No-one’s allowed to lodge a freedom of information request with them. They don’t turn up to parliamentary hearings for Senate estimates. They hide from scrutiny. That’s the key word for net zero with this government and the previous Liberal-National government—’hide’; hide the cost, hide the lack of policy basis, hide the damage, hide the lack of a plan. 

Now look at the AEMO board. Employees of for-profit energy and transmission companies dominate the AEMO board. We’re supposed to just trust they’re effectively prescribing rules and directing billions of dollars in taxpayer money purely for the public good, not for energy company profits—bloody ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. This is setting up government as a vehicle for wealth transfer from us, the people, to parasites—parasites not working in Australia’s national interest, hurting Australia and hurting Australians. 

With this bill, the government is taking the Energy Regulator out of the competition regulator. The ACCC’s role in energy markets is in the context of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which aims to—listen to this—’enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision of consumer protections’. That’s a great goal. Why would we want to make the Energy Regulator more independent of that and put it beyond scrutiny and put it in hiding? If we’re trying to figure out if that’s a good thing to do, the first question to ask should be this: are there any competition problems in the energy market? If the answer is yes, maybe the competition regulator should have final oversight, like it does right now. 

So let’s look at the ACCC’s work on the electricity market. The first shot across the bow was the ACCC’s 2017 preliminary report eight years ago. In that report, the ACCC said: 

The ACCC has published a preliminary report into the electricity market highlighting significant concerns about the operation of the National Electricity Market, which is leading to serious problems with affordability for consumers and businesses. 

What? That’s what they said eight years ago. The ACCC thought prices were ‘putting Australian businesses and consumers under unacceptable pressure’. Since then, prices have become much, much worse. One can only wonder why. Market participants harp on about pulling the Energy Regulator out of the competition regulator while the ACCC highlights ‘significant concerns’ about how energy corporations are actually acting, behaving.  

Another headline from the ACCC, in December 2024 in the Financial Review, said, ‘More than 80 per cent of Aussies paying too much for their electricity.’ There was another story in May this year, ‘”Super complaint” filed with ACCC over misleading energy plans’. I’ll quote it: ‘CHOICE’—that’s CHOICE magazine, the consumer group—’has sent its first-ever super complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, over allegations that retailers in the Australian energy market have engaged in dodgy and misleading pricing tactics that leave customers paying $65 million more than they should.’ 

So, returning to our overall question, are there any competition issues in the energy market? Should the competition regulator be involved in monitoring every aspect of those issues? The answer to both is a resounding yes. 

The ACCC will wrap up its ongoing reports into the electricity market in August. After that, there’s a real risk that competition in the electricity market will continue to deteriorate and deteriorate and deteriorate even further. What will that mean? It will mean higher prices and poorer service for Australians. Less competition means bigger profits for Labor’s big corporate mates in the energy sector, who are often foreign owned multinationals or parasitic billionaires. That’s what this bill represents—wealth transferred to the wealthy; a step towards higher profits for multinational corporations who want to gouge Australians even more under the cover of the renewables scam. 

Indeed, under the new Australian Energy Regulator, workers will no longer be required to make disclosures of their personal interests, as everyone in the ACCC is obliged to. This is as good as a green light for everyone with a conflict of interest to get involved in the new Energy Regulator—and you, the government, are doing this. The risk of corruption, cronyism and favouritism will be so big it will make the director of the National Anti-Corruption Commission blush. The Albanese Labor government has long signalled its intention to put the profits of its corporate wind and solar mates above and beyond competition—and above Australian workers and above Australian families and above Australian small businesses and employers and above Australia. 

Why doesn’t today’s Labor realise that its official, registered name is the a-l-p—Australian Labor Party? It seems to have forgotten and ditched Australia. Why do they continue to ditch Australia? And there’s no ‘u’ in Labor, because the l-a-b-o-r party does not represent you. 

Upon coming to government in 2022, Labor almost immediately transferred the energy regulator part of the Competition and Consumer Act out of Treasury and away from the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Bowen. Can you believe that? It happened—the fox guarding the henhouse; the fox destroying the energy sector and making it a racket for Labor’s private mates to gouge Australians. If there’s a battle between lower prices and profits for wind and solar, everyone in this chamber knows where Minister Chris Bowen’s loyalties lie. Can Australia trust that Minister Bowen will choose competition and lower prices over net zero and the profits of parasitic renewables grifter-billionaires? Absolutely not. Based on his behaviour to date, every day of the week Minister Bowen will choose the profits of these renewables scammers over Australians and over Australia. 

The net zero dream is that you’ll pay $8,000 for a home battery and $60,000 for an electric vehicle and the grid will pay you nothing to drain it overnight to stabilise their dodgy market, their racket. That’s called ‘consumer energy resources’ and ‘virtual power plants’. Without them, the net zero pipedream just collapses. 

Competition doesn’t even come into consideration. This corrupted state control and abuse of consumer rights is a built-in feature of the net zero scam from the Liberal-Nationals and the Labor-Greens—citizens directly paying 70 per cent of the cost of the transition to net zero. You pay; they control and they use. In other areas, some people reliably estimate taxpayers and electricity consumers are paying 100 per cent of the $1.9 trillion transition to the UN-World Economic Forum net zero. The ACCC would have a heart attack at the anticompetitive proposals being rushed into the energy racket. That’s the real reason this bill seeks to take the Australian Energy Regulator out of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Australians’ power bills will continue to go up, as will the profits of foreign multinational companies involved in the net zero scam. That’s where your money is going. One Nation believes consumers should come before corporations. Ditch the net zero scam and its anticompetitive nonsense—its racket. What proportion of solar and wind complexes do Labor mates and industry super funds own, I wonder? We know it started pretty high with Greg Combet as minister. Labor, stop looking after your mates who own the industrial wind and solar complexes and stop handing over to them billions from taxpayers and electricity consumers. Put Australians first and lower power bills. 

I now add two brief comments. Firstly, when states owned electricity generators, energy benefited from a key constitutional tenet that our founding fathers wisely built into our Commonwealth Constitution—competitive federalism, a marketplace in governance between the states. A marketplace in governance is vital for accountability, vital for states’ rights and vital for Australian sovereignty and independence. John Howard’s Liberal-National government destroyed this when it created the so-called national electricity market, which is really a central bureaucratic energy racket, destroying accountability and now lining it up for fleecing Australians to foreign multinationals. 

Secondly, I acknowledge over 300 community groups across Australia fighting the rollout of industrial sized wind and solar projects, so-called renewable energy projects. The only thing renewable about them is that they have to be replaced every 15 years. Among many Australians across our country, I recognise Katy McCallum, Steven Nowakowski—what a man!—Grant Piper, Emma Bowman, Bill Stinson, Sandra Burke, Steven Tripp, Andrew Weidemann and Katherine Meyers. These people are for Australia and for the regions and for every Australian. I also recognise Colin Boyce, Llew O’Brien, Ben Abbott, Alex O’Brien, Michaela Humble, Michelle Hunt, Lynette LaBlack and Rafe Champion. This is a list of champions for Australia. I also recognise Neil Kilion, Sasha McNaughton, Caroline Emms, Nikki Kelly, Alex Nichol, Martine Shepherd, Scott Baxter, the Bob Brown Foundation—thank you, Bob!—the IPA, Rainforest Reserves, the Centre for Independent Studies, and Ben Beattie and Aidan Morrison, two giants of the energy sector. 

I recognise every person involved in exposing the horrific damage from industrial solar panels and industrial wind turbines, from the growing spaghetti network of high-voltage transmission lines carpeting regional Australia, from the big battery energy storage systems and from hideous, uneconomic, exploitative, environmentally damaging pumped hydro, destroying the fabric of our nation, white-anting the five pillars of our Australian community, our society: productive farmland, the source of our food; rural landscapes; wildlife habitats, our precious natural environment being torn apart by solar and wind and transmission lines; our communities; and our Australian way of life. 

To everyone involved, I say thank you. From Lakeland on Cape York to Chalumbin in North Queensland to Central Queensland, Wide Bay and Burnett, southern Queensland, New South Wales Central West, northern New South Wales, southern New South Wales, coastal New South Wales, across Victoria, Tasmania’s Robbins Island and so many more across our wide, beautiful regional Australia, I continue my admiration and continue to pledge my support for your honesty and integrity, your courage, your embracing of accurate data and your informed commitment to putting Australia and Australians first. Thank you very much. We support you as you continue your battle. 

/0 Comments/by

Scientific Proof or UN Propaganda?

,

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”

The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.

It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.

To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.

We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.

I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.

— Public Hearing | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.

Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.

Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?

Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.

Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.

Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.

Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?

Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.

CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.

CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?

CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—

Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.

CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?

Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.

Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.

CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.

CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?

Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.

Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.

Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—

CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.

Ms Scaddan: That is noted.

CHAIR: It’s noted.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Scaddan.

/3 Comments/by

Betraying the Food Bowl

,

The government’s modelling suggests we need 107 million tonnes of carbon sequestration by 2050. By my math, that would mean around 5 million hectares of productive farmland will be swallowed up by trees and woody weeds. When I asked them exactly how many hectares would be lost, the department admitted they don’t have a figure. They are implementing a plan that will devastate our agriculture sector.

Despite the UN Paris Agreement (Article 2(1)(b)) explicitly stating that climate action should not threaten food production, this department hasn’t even sought legal advice on whether their plan breaches that requirement. They are relying on Treasury “scenarios” that claim food production will magically increase by 32%, even while they lock up the land used to grow it.

I asked if they had assessed the combined impact of reforestation and carbon plantings, renewable energy projects (solar/wind) and massive clear felled transmission corridors. The answer was a flat no. They are ignoring the “slow-motion train wreck” of transmission lines and renewables destroying our food bowls because they say it’s “another department’s problem.”

While officials talk about “diversification of enterprise mix” and “market clearing,” I know the truth on the ground. Locking up land leads to explosions in noxious weeds and feral animals, increased management costs for neighbouring properties and the destruction of regional communities and jobs.

My Conclusion: This reckless “plan” is nothing but bureaucratic speak and strategy without a shred of solid data to back it up. They are gambling with Australia’s food security to satisfy an insane, unachievable net-zero agenda.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The net zero Agriculture and Land Sector Plan commits to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050. Based on sequestration rates of one to 21 tonnes per hectare, that means at least five million hectares of farmland could be converted to trees and woody weeds. How can you justify this when it risks reducing food production and creating food insecurity for Australians?

Mr Lowe: The Ag and Land Sector Plan doesn’t commit to 107 million tonnes of sequestration. The way I’d characterise that is that that was part of the Treasury modelling which described a particular pathway to achieving net zero, which factored in an amount of sequestration that would be needed in the particular scenario. What the Ag and Land Sector Plan does is identify a range of different options for landholders and farmers to reduce emissions and commit to a number of particular actions in which to achieve that. The first of those is understanding on-farm emissions as a foundational action. The second is around research and innovation, technology being an important factor in supporting farmers to reduce emissions, as it has been. Research and development have been foundational actions to support farmers throughout the course of agriculture in Australia. The third is on-ground action. We know that supporting farmers with the capability and skills that they need to manage their enterprise and reduce emissions is really important. The fourth is around maximising the potential of the land sector.

In relation to that, from our perspective, we think there are significant opportunities for producers to take up diversification of their enterprise mix in relation to land sequestration opportunities. Earlier in this committee, we were talking about soil carbon projects, and soil carbon projects are being explored by a number of participants in the livestock sector. Revegetation, where they’re garnering ACCUs as well. I might leave it there, but we can go into further detail if you’d like.

Senator ROBERTS: So the net zero agriculture and land sector plan does not commit to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050.

Mr Lowe: No, it doesn’t.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any sequestration?

Mr Lowe: It acknowledges that sequestration will be an important factor in achieving net zero, and it acknowledges that sequestration is also an important opportunity for producers in terms of diversification of their enterprise mix and diversification of income sources.

Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land under this plan is currently producing food?

Mr Lowe: It’s in the order of 50 to 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass where agricultural production of some form is undertaken. I’ll defer to colleagues as to whether I got that number right.

Dr Greenville: Yes, 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass is currently undertaking agricultural activities.

Senator ROBERTS: What will be the impact of the plan on food production?

Dr Greenville: I think the Treasury projection and the ag and land plan modelling that they conducted—and it’s just a scenario—has agricultural production continuing to increase out to 2050.

Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land is affected, though?

Dr Greenville: They did not provide estimates of the land base—

Senator ROBERTS: Does that bother either of you?

Dr Greenville: Sorry, Senator, maybe as you saw, we’ve mentioned and had a discussion with keen interest with Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie around this topic. We at ABARES are undertaking some work to explore the implications for the land use.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on the question before you, you’re undertaking that work?

Dr Greenville: Yes. We let the committee know, and there were some interesting questions on notice when we provided some detail around that. I’m happy to talk.

Mr Lowe: To clarify, that work has been ongoing. It was acknowledged in the Treasury modelling that I referred to earlier that ABARES has been undertaking that work.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you just accept Treasury modelling?

Mr Lowe: We provide inputs into Treasury modelling.

Senator ROBERTS: But you haven’t published modelling yourself on the impact on food output. You’re relying on Treasury saying it will increase.

Mr Lowe: As my colleague, Dr Greenville, said, we’re undertaking work in relation to that.

Senator ROBERTS: Based on questions that were put to you today.

Mr Lowe: No, based on work that was already ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Even article 2(1)(b) of the UN Paris Agreement requires climate action to avoid threatening food production. Is there any land being locked up under your plan?

Mr Lowe: The ag and land sector plan also acknowledges—and a key tenet of it is—that achieving emissions reduction shouldn’t come at the cost of food security. We would say that the ag and land sector plan is consistent with that acknowledgement that you read out.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice that your plan doesn’t breach the Paris Agreement?

Mr Lowe: The Net Zero Plan and the six sector plans are government plans to be consistent with the Paris Agreement.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice?

Mr Lowe: We have not, as a department.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know it’s consistent?

Mr Lowe: I think that question may be best directed to DCCEEW, but I’m not aware of legal advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Aren’t you responsible for the plan?

Mr Lowe: We’re responsible for the ag and land sector plan, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And the impact on the ag sector?

Mr Lowe: Yes. We have not sought legal advice in relation to the ag and land sector plan, and its consistency with the Paris Agreement, to answer your specific question.

Senator ROBERTS: I read that you spent $2.2 million developing the plan, yet you cannot provide a figure, as I understand it, for hectares to be reforested.

Mr Lowe: We don’t have a figure currently; that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that acceptable?

Mr Lowe: It’s work in progress.

Senator ROBERTS: How is that a plan?

Mr Lowe: There are a number of elements of the plan, as I mentioned, for foundational actions. Maximising the sequestration potential of the land is one of those.

Senator ROBERTS: I get the carbon dioxide sequestration. I don’t believe in all this crap, because there’s no data to back it up. I believe carbon dioxide sequestration will increase food production, but not if it locks up land—because then you’ve got noxious weeds and feral animals proliferating and going onto neighbouring properties, which increases the cost of managing neighbouring properties. Are you aware of these things?

Mr Lowe: I’d say, consistent with my earlier comments, that there are significant opportunities in carbon sequestration for producers. I’m aware of a number of examples of producers who have put into place plantation forestry on their enterprise and added that to their enterprise mix—so they’ve increased the number of trees on their property. It’s supported an increase in carrying capacity of stocking rates and diversified their income stream by enabling them to undertake forest activities. There’s an example of a New England wool producer, Michael Taylor; he’s got native and pine forest on his enterprise. He’s got a sawmill on his enterprise as well, where he cuts down, saws and processes the timber on his enterprise to sell. One of the benefits he ascribes to that is having an income during leaner years; where he’s got lower stocking rates, he can sell the timber and continue to employ people on his farm.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to visit some properties in south-western Queensland that have been locked up, where neighbouring properties are being destroyed?

Mr Lowe: Always open to visiting farmers and properties.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you commit to publishing a hectare estimate before implementing any measures; yes or no?

Mr Lowe: We’re already implementing measures.

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how much land will be locked up?

Mr Lowe: As I’ve said, that work is ongoing but we are already implementing measures in relation to the ag and land sector plan.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re implementing the plan before the plan is finalised?

Mr Lowe: The plan is finalised.

Senator ROBERTS: But the hectares aren’t.

Mr Lowe: That work is still ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO’s land use trade-offs model shows carbon plantings compete directly with agriculture for land. How will this impact Australia’s food bowls and rural jobs?

Mr Lowe: I’d say it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach as to how carbon sequestration plays out in the landscape. There will be lots of different ways that land managers and producers decide to take up carbon sequestration opportunities. So I probably wouldn’t characterise things in the way that you have. What I would say is that we think there are opportunities for producers. I also think that, certainly, the types of lands that might be more favourably disposed to carbon sequestration—and ABARES can talk about this in more detail if you like—are the types of lands that are less productive. We would envisage is that we would often see multiple-use land, so land where there’s revegetation happening but also still able to support primary production.

Senator ROBERTS: I know the answer to this question. Have you assessed the combined impact of reforestation, renewable energy projects and transmission corridors on farmland availability?

Mr Lowe: In terms of hectare impact, for example?

Senator ROBERTS: The loss of productive farmland.

Mr Lowe: The answer is no. The work that we have ongoing is particularly in relation to carbon sequestration in the landscape.

Senator ROBERTS: You are not going to consider the renewable energy projects taking up farmland for transmission lines. They’re massive, and the farmers are pretty damn upset about them. People in regional communities, not just farmers, are upset.

Mr Lowe: That is a matter that’s the purview of DCCEEW in terms of renewable energy and transmission. We are interested in understanding the land impact of that and have been working with DCCEEW to understand that better.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand you’re developing a national food security strategy.

Mr Lowe: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: How can that strategy be credible if you don’t know how much farmland will be lost to carbon dioxide sequestration, solar and wind generation or transmission lines?

Mr Lowe: I think the development of the strategy will be taking in multiple perspectives in relation to Australia’s future food security. We received over 400 submissions when we put out a discussion paper recently on Australia’s future food security. I haven’t read those submissions in detail. I imagine some of them might have raised those sorts of issues, so it is something that will be a matter of consideration. Equally of consideration—in fact, something that I understand came through really strongly in the submissions—will be the climate impact on our primary production enterprises and the importance of resilient farming systems as well.

Senator ROBERTS: In your planning and strategising what comes first—data or strategy?

Mr Lowe: We’d like to think that there’s a combination of both, where we can.

Senator ROBERTS: I thought data was the first step to understanding what you’re going to strategise about.

Mr Lowe: Another input is consultation, and we take that really seriously. In the development of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, we focused very heavily on consulting and consulting with our state and territory counterparts. We had an issues paper out on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan. We received a large number of submissions in relation to that. We held a sustainability summit that was auspiced by Minister Bowen and Minister Watt on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, and we held a number of roundtables as well with industry stakeholders on the plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you integrate land-use change modelling into the food security strategy and publish the findings?

Mr Lowe: We have land-use change modelling on foot. We will publish the findings, and we’re very happy to use it as an input into the food security strategy as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Has DAFF modelled the impact of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan on agricultural gross domestic product?

Mr Lowe: I’m just trying to think about that.

Dr Greenville: That was part of the modelling that Treasury undertook, and it’s an area where you have quoted that 107 million tonnes from. They have projections as part of that, like the 107 million tonnes, about agricultural production as well as agricultural emissions intensities and so forth. There’s detail in that.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked the assumptions on which it’s based or the actual figures?

Dr Greenville: We provided some information to give them the baseline on which they looked at the plan, and they’re quite detailed with what they’ve done in terms of the plan, the assumptions they’ve made and the like, and that’s all been published as part of that result.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you scrutinised it?

Dr Greenville: Obviously, we’ve taken a look. We take a keen interest, which is why—

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Taking a look’ is a bit different from scrutinising.

Dr Greenville: Which is why we’re undertaking our own modelling with the land sector. They pointed out that there was considerable uncertainty in land base sequestration potential and the trade-offs between sequestration and agricultural value. We’ve invested in improving information around regional impacts and trade-offs.

Senator ROBERTS: Treasury assumes agricultural production will rise by about 32 per cent by 2050, but we don’t know how much land is going to be sequestered. How much land is going to be destroyed? How is it possible to get food production increased by 32 per cent if we don’t know the land that will be cut off?

Dr Greenville: Under a market-based approach, sequestration will occur where opportunity costs to agriculture are low. That is not inconsistent with agricultural production continuing to grow while carbon sequestration is added as another land-use activity.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve raised markets, so that raises carbon dioxide price. What carbon dioxide price is assumed to drive reforestation at the scale required, and will farmers be forced to choose between growing food and earning carbon dioxide credits?

Dr Greenville: That would be an outcome of modelling we haven’t finalised yet, so I don’t want to speculate.

Senator ROBERTS: The plan references alternative proteins. Is DAFF actively promoting lab grown meat as a substitute for real meat?

Mr Lowe: Not actively.

Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has been made of the economic and cultural impact of replacing traditional meat with lab grown alternatives?

Mr Lowe: We haven’t done detailed work on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this terrifies me. There doesn’t seem to be any data driving the plan. That’s just a statement.

CHAIR: I’ll take that as a statement. Do you have further questions?

Senator ROBERTS: No, thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Questions CASA Won’t Answer

,

In this Estimates session, I asked CASA about an incident that raised serious safety questions where a Qantas flight made an emergency landing in Sydney after the captain suffered chest pains. I wanted to know if a full medical review had been done since the event. CASA couldn’t answer on the spot and agreed to take it on notice.

I asked whether the pilot had received a COVID-19 mRNA jab and if CASA’s medical investigation screens for conditions linked to adverse vaccine events. Again, no answers — just promises to take it on notice.

Then I pressed CASA on something I’ve raised before: their refusal to provide the number of times “myocarditis” appears in their medical record system. They admitted they could do the search however argued it would take too much time and might be misleading. I made it clear — I want the data.

Finally, I shifted to another concern: wind turbines being installed on prime agricultural land. I asked whether CASA considers the impact on aerial operations like crop dusting. CASA confirmed they provide advice on aviation safety but don’t make the final decision — that’s left to local councils.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I want to ask about the Qantas plane that made an urgent landing at Sydney airport in March after the captain suffered chest pains. Has a full medical report been done on this pilot for his CASA licence after this event? 

Ms Spence: I don’t have that information in front of me, but I’m happy to take it on notice and provide you with a response.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has that information?  

Ms Spence: No, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did the pilot have a COVID-19 mRNA jab?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident, but I’m happy to provide that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did CASA’s medical investigation specifically screen for the conditions associated with adverse events from COVID-19?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident. I’m happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move slightly. I’m assuming you’re still refusing to draw the number of times the word myocarditis appears in your medical record system and provide it to the committee, even though you’re capable of doing it.  

Ms Spence: I think we gave you information in response to your questions on notice explaining the time associated with doing a search for the terms you mention and how long it would take to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you are still refusing. You’ve made your position clear. You can do it. You just think it could be misleading. Now you’re saying it might be too much work. I want to ask if you’re still maintaining that you will refuse to provide that answer. I’ll ask you to take it on notice once again. The proper process is for the minister to raise a public interest immunity claim. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Spence: What we can take on notice is whether there have been further references to that term in our system since the last time we gave you that answer and then we can provide you advice on how long it would take us to do any more detailed analysis about the basis on which that term was used.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you say that again, please?  

Ms Spence: We can take it on notice to provide you with an update on the number of times, based on a search, that those terms have come up in our system since the last time. We can also provide you with advice on how long it would take us to do individual analysis of each time those words came up.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I want is the information with no qualifications. I just want the information. If you’re not going to provide it, I want a public interest immunity claim from the minister.  

Ms Spence: Taking it on notice is the process that’s normally followed when there’s—  

Senator ROBERTS: If you’re not going to give me the data that I want—  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve asked the question. It’s been answered and taken on notice. We have limited time, so I suggest you move on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever been consulted in relation to wind turbines that are being put up on prime agricultural land and the effect this will have on aerial agricultural operations like crop dusting?  

Ms Spence: Our views are often sought in relation to the establishment of wind turbines. We provide our views on it. We don’t have a decision-making role as to whether or not those turbines can be installed.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you do give guidance?  

Ms Spence: We provide advice on what the impact might be.  

Senator ROBERTS: Some of these issues were raised over 10 years ago with CASA, I understand, directly. Are you being asked about these developments today?  

Ms Spence: Yes. We’re still being asked. As I said, we don’t have a decision-making role, but we certainly provide advice on any aviation impacts for the decision-maker, which is usually a local area council.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t make a final decision on that?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just provide safety advice?  

Ms Spence: That’s right. We don’t have any decision-making role in those areas.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. 

/by

Killing the Bush to Please the Cities

,

Victoria has taken another step toward eroding democracy and destroying the natural environment. Premier Allan’s extremist government approved the Meadow Creek industrial solar project, completely ignoring objections from locals. Under new laws in Victoria, there’s no right to appeal this decision.

This is about appeasing wealthy urban voters under the guise of a false climate emergency—not saving the planet.

The project will turn 566 hectares of prime farmland into an industrial site, destroying property values, tourism, and jobs. Toxic runoff from degrading panels will flow into the Ovens River water supply catchment and then into the Murray-Darling Basin.

RMIT planning professor Michael Buxton described the approval as “an autocratic imposition without regard for liberal democracy.” No wonder many Victorians are leaving Victoria-stan!

Labor’s climate crusade is a façade—behind it lies the destruction of our human and natural environment.

– Senate Speech | November 2025

Transcript

Last week, Victoria continued its incremental destruction of human rights and the natural environment. Premier Allan’s extremist government has approved the Meadow Creek industrial solar installation against the wishes of local residents. Five hundred submissions opposing the development were lodged by people who did not realise Victoria is no longer a democracy and the will of the people is a joke to Premier Allan. Under new laws in Victoria, there can’t be any appeal to this decision. Premier Allan will happily run roughshod over communities it doesn’t need votes from to pander to constituents it does. In this case, rich urban voters with an ability complex, happy to destroy the natural to assuage their guilt at living lives of plenty on the back of Australia’s coal power—all in the name of a fictitious, dishonest climate emergency. What they’re really doing is denying young Australians the same life they led—a life which included homeownership on a single wage, proper holidays, a decent education without a lifetime of debt, and a healthy natural environment. 

RMIT planning professor Michael Buxton has described approval of Meadow Creek as ‘the autocratic imposition of a project without any regard for the principles of a liberal democracy’—a massive $750 million development turning 566 hectares of prime farmland into a toxic industrial site, destroying the value of neighbouring properties, destroying the natural environment, destroying tourism, destroying employment in agriculture and tourism and destroying the human environment. The toxic run-off from the solar panels, once they start to degrade, will go straight into the Ovens River water supply catchment and then into the Murray-Darling Basin. The Labor Party lies say they’re not running a war on the bush. No wonder so many Victorians are leaving and seeking political asylum anywhere other than Victoria-stan. Victoria is dishonestly pretending to save the planet while killing the human environment and natural environment. (Time expired) 

/by

Wake Up, Australia: The Uniparty Is Selling You Out

,

The Nationals are starting to see the truth about the net zero scam — well, sort of.

They are finally admitting net zero is hurting regional Australia—yet they still cling to the scam. One Nation has said for years: scrap net zero completely. It’s costing taxpayers $30 billion a year and will blow out to $1.9 trillion by 2050, while electricity prices keep rising and everyday Australians suffer.

Meanwhile, foreign-controlled corporations and banks dominate our markets, driving prices up while executives pocket millions. Add mass migration pushing rents up, and you see why Australians are sliding into poverty.

One Nation warned this would happen—and we have the solutions. It’s time to put Australians first. Our solutions are practical, proven, and ready to go. As JFK said: Our problems are man-made. Therefore, they can be solved by man.

Transcript

Welcome to the latest episode of your favourite TV show: One Nation Were Right All Along. First up, we have the Nationals finally seeing the light of the net zero scam—well, kind of. Their support has gone from unqualified support to ‘how much net zero can we do before we start losing seats?’ In their announcement, Nationals leader David Littleproud said: ‘The Nationals accept the science of climate change and remain committed to emissions reduction. The current aggressive pursuit of net zero is unfairly damaging to regional Australia and economically unsustainable for the country’—he’s waking up—’We need a slower pace aligned with the OECD average’.  

That’s a clever sleight of hand. The OECD reduction has stalled for five years. Their accumulative reduction is currently 14 per cent, and Australia’s is 24 per cent. The latest data will show ours at 28 per cent, double the OECD’s. Tying Australia to the OECD will buy the Nationals an election or two before having to restart reductions. Remember, though, that they still believe in net zero and in the need to cut carbon dioxide production. I welcome the Nationals realisation of the damage net zero is doing and wish they had more courage to walk away from the scam entirely. 

In contrast, One Nation strongly oppose net zero, and we would abolish all federal government net zero mandates, programs and boondoggles. We would shut down all the schemes and departments promoting this scam, saving taxpayers $30 billion every year. This is not the only cost of course. Parasitic billionaires and corporations sucking on taxpayer subsidies and electricity consumer subsidies, and others in private industry, are taking advantage of this scam to build industrial solar and wind, transmission lines, big batteries and other paraphernalia of net zero. This cost will be as high as $1.9 trillion through to 2050. Remember that industrial solar and wind lasts only 15 years, which means everything that has been built so far will not be in use in 2050 and will have to be built again and again. The government’s Bollywood version of the cost of net zero does not take into account this massive expense—nor do they consider the environmental cost of the destruction of native forests for wind turbines, access roads and transmission lines; the cost of dumping these monstrosities into landfill every 15 years; or the run-off from toxic metals from damaged solar panels. This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. 

Electricity is an input cost right across the economy. The price of everything you buy, from physical goods in stores to services and financial products, goes up as the electricity bills of the companies providing those services go up. Everyday Australians are poorer because of net zero, and so is Australia’s beautiful natural environment. The government used to say, ‘Renewables are cheaper, so prices will come down eventually.’ However, after 20 years of the transition—the last three at breakneck pace—electricity bills are not coming down; they’re rising rapidly.  

Some of those who are wealthy enough and have an actual house in which to install solar panels and an expensive wall battery are reporting slightly reduced electricity bills. The very few Australians with the money to spend $25,000 on a solar array and wall battery for a home they own are thumbing their noses at the millions that do not have a house and $25,000 to add solar and a battery. Net zero is becoming a case of the haves and have-nots. Those who can’t afford their own electricity generation are left to buy electricity at prices that have increased at twice the rate of inflation since the net zero benchmark year of 2005. It’s a trend that continues, with a nine per cent increase in electricity prices in 2025. 

One Nation are right in our opposition to mass migration. Today we learnt that the majority of Australians agree with us—right again. A poll in the Australian yesterday showed that almost two-thirds of Australians want a reduction in the migration rate; 94 per cent of One Nation supporters support reduced migration, which has now been a feature of One Nation policy for 30 years, ever since the Liberal-National coalition under John Howard doubled migration and started mass migration. Significantly, 78 per cent of coalition voters want a reduction in immigration, and so do 71 per cent of supporters of smaller parties and independents, which does include the teals—so that’s very interesting. 

What caught my eye with the poll is that two parties who have been pushing infinite immigration are doing so against the wishes of their supporters. Only 10 per cent of Labor’s supporters want more migrants, while 49 per cent want fewer. While 27 per cent of Greens voters want more immigration, 32 per cent want less. Immigration is now one of the biggest election issues in New South Wales, which is not surprising, given the rental crisis in the greater Sydney area, thanks to the Albanese immigration invasion. It is interesting to see there is no gender divide on immigration. Opposition to high immigration is spread evenly between men and women. 

It’s a betrayal of the very concept of democracy for this government to continue its globalist agenda to flood Australia with these very high levels of mass immigration against the wishes of the Australian people. Liberal and Labor governments are importing too many new arrivals from cultures that do not readily assimilate and bring with them a religion, Islam, that seeks to carve out a slice of this country to introduce their own system of law—divisive. 

At the same time, the government is inhumanely ignoring the tragedy of the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, in Sudan and in South Africa. I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday in question time how many Christian refugees we brought in from these trouble spots. The answer was telling: zero! I asked who’s benefiting from Australia’s humanitarian intake. His answer was that the top five countries for refugee visas, 15,000 in all, are all Islamic countries. This is nothing more than selective discrimination against Christians. In the past, Australians would have considered this sedition. One Nation still does. 

Third, One Nation is correct about the standard of living. For years, I’ve been warning the Australian people that the net zero agenda, combined with mass immigration, is destroying business investment in our productive capacity, reducing living standards. Sky News is reporting today just how bad things have become. One in seven Australians now live below the poverty line, and one in six children are below the poverty line. That’s 3.7 million people struggling to pay for food, power and rent in a nation bursting with resources, all a result of Liberal-Labor uniparty policies—mass migration, net zero, housing, overregulation. 

In what was once the richest country, per capita, in the world, we now have the worst poverty in my lifetime, yet we still have the natural resources; the abundant hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas; amazing farmland; and a strong tourism industry. For years, successive Liberal and Labor governments have shut down industries that provided breadwinner jobs in steelworks and heavy manufacturing, and value-adding jobs like textiles. They weighed our farmers down with so much green tape and blue United Nations tape that they are struggling to stay afloat. Australian wealth is being sabotaged in a process called ‘managed decline’. It’s deliberate. Yet our GDP is still growing. What’s going on? Australia’s wealth is being transferred from Australians to foreign beneficiaries. The world’s predatory billionaires have used their investment funds, like BlackRock, First State, Vanguard and State Street, to buy not only shares in Australian companies but entire industries. Except for two of our insurance companies, all our insurance companies are foreign owned. 

Major retailers Coles, Woolies and Bunnings are foreign controlled. The Australian big four banks are foreign controlled, and so are our telcos and oil and gas companies. Satan’s bankers then put up prices, knowing they control the markets, so consumers become price takers. There’s no market anymore; it’s controlled. Australians working at the top of these companies take extremely high salaries—in many cases, multimillion dollar salaries—in return for compliance, and everyday Australians go backwards into poverty. 

The government is making things worse, allowing so many new arrivals that housing prices and rents are forced upwards, while quality of life and standards of living go backwards. In Sydney, median unit rents have surged 40 per cent since 2021, and Melbourne and Brisbane aren’t far behind, climbing more than 30 per cent. For low-income renters, over half now spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing—30 per cent on housing! Our prime minister went to the last election promising to leave no-one behind, knowing his policies were doing exactly the opposite. The government is now increasing spending on housing, on paid parental leave, on child care and on hiring more and more and more public servants on high wages to paper over what is a crashing economy. The government can’t use debt and money printing forever to save its backside. Debt and printing money cause their own severe economic problems and then more poverty. 

One Nation has opposed the net zero war on business investment. We have opposed the migration invasion, and we warned that these policies, combined with the red bureaucratic tape, green tape and blue United Nations tape would destroy the standard of living in our beautiful country. And it has. We bloody told you so! We have put forward solutions and practical, effective policies to solve all these challenges—proven solutions. All these issues are due to decades of dishonest Liberal-Labor uniparty policies and laws. As President John F Kennedy said: 

Our problems are man made. Therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. 

One Nation is right. 

/by

Your Battery, Their Grid: Read the Fine Print

,

I moved a motion in the Senate to refer the issue of electricity smart meters to the Economics References Committee for inquiry. Why? Because Australians are being misled and left vulnerable.

The rollout of smart meters was promised as “voluntary”, yet it has now been made mandatory by this Labor government. These devices allow power companies—and governments—to monitor and control your electricity use. Worse still, energy companies can switch you to other tariffs without your consent. That means higher bills and less control over your own home.

Smart meters were sold as a way to help households save money, yet the reality is very different. Complaints have skyrocketed about unexplained tariff changes and complex pricing schemes that punish everyday Australians. And now, with Labor’s household battery scheme tied to “virtual” power plants, there’s nothing stopping your battery—paid for by you—being drained whenever the grid operator decides in the future.

This is not about helping consumers; it’s about control. It’s about protecting an unstable grid caused by the rush to unreliable solar and wind, at your expense.

One Nation stands with Australians against greedy power companies and foreign multinationals. We want transparency, accountability, and real consumer protections. We want to know what Labor is hiding. This inquiry is about giving power back to the people—literally.

The Vote

Transcript

I move: 

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 April 2026: 

The state of consumer protections in relation to electricity ‘smart meters’, with specific reference to: 

  • consumer rights to opt out from smart meter installation; 
  • ‘surge’, ‘cost-reflective power’ or ‘flexible’ tariffs and their impacts on household power bills; 
  • the Australian Electricity Market Commission rule change allowing electricity companies to change customers onto a punitive power tariff without their consent after two years; and 
  • any related matters. 

Three years ago, One Nation told the country: 

Australia is firmly on the path towards a dystopian future with households having their access to electricity taken out of their hands and monitored, controlled and restricted by governments. 

That’s control of your electricity use in the government’s hands and in energy company hands, including foreign multinational companies. That is control of your electricity and your access to it—whether you can use it and what you can use it for. This is only possible with the now mandatory rollout of smart meters, which are internet connected electricity meters. 

For many years, the rollout of smart meters was promised as purely voluntary. The experience of people who voluntarily got a smart meter was absolutely terrible. Daniel Mercer from the ABC reported in April that the New South Wales energy watchdog had sounded the alarm, saying too many consumers were being hit with poor service and left worse off from the smart meter rollout. He wrote: 

The watchdog said there had also been a major increase in the number of complaints related to sudden, unexplained changes to people’s electricity tariffs. 

There were changes to their tariffs with no consent. He continued: 

Such changes often involved customers being switched from flat rate prices, where they paid the same rate for a unit of power no matter when they bought it, to complex and dynamic charges. 

Among these were time-of-use tariffs, in which customers paid more for power at peak times, and demand charges, which involved charging someone based on their single biggest half-hour of use across an entire month. 

So, if you used a higher level of power for just half an hour, that put you onto a higher rate that was across all your electricity use for the entire month. He went on: 

“The smart meter rollout aimed to increase flexibility and customer engagement with the energy market, by allowing customers to manage their energy usage and save money,” Ms Young— 

the New South Wales Energy and Water Ombudsman— 

said. 

“But we aren’t seeing evidence of this in complaints that come to [the ombudsman], in fact, we are seeing the opposite.” 

What was the Albanese Labor government’s response to all of these problems? Did they try to fix them? No. They doubled down. The Labor government in June made the smart meter rollout mandatory. This federal Labor government made the smart meter rollout mandatory. They said anyone going onto a smart meter couldn’t be put onto a punitive tariff. They did say that. This, though, is only temporary relief that will last just two years. After that, it’s open season for power company profiteering. The smart meters are a key part of the government’s emergency plans. 

Think about why they need emergency plans. The energy minister, Chris Bowen, is spruiking his household battery scheme. What he isn’t telling Australians about is the fine print. To receive the government’s subsidy for a household battery, your battery must be ‘capable of participating in a virtual power plant’—virtual power plant; this gets more and more crazy. A virtual power plant, or VPP, is simply about being able to drain your battery, which you paid for, to the grid whenever your power company wants. Combined with an always connected smart meter, there’s nothing stopping the grid operator from draining a household battery whenever they want in the future—whenever they want—disregarding your need for electricity. By the way, you, the householder, pay for the battery. Home batteries—why are they needed? They’re needed to ensure stability—the stability of electricity supply. Solar and wind are inherently asynchronous, making them unstable. Coal, hydro, nuclear and gas are all synchronous; they’re stable, reliable, secure. 

As the proportion of electricity from solar and wind increases, the grid becomes unstable. This is fact. It has happened overseas; it has happened here. As the grid becomes more unstable, the ability to reach into Australians’ homes to take over their batteries will be too tempting for you lot, the government. It will be essential, in order to protect our grid, to reach in and control your battery, drain your battery, which you paid for. It will be essential to protect the grid from their onslaught of solar and wind asynchronous generation. The government won’t be able to resist. We already have the data to prove it. Last year, Queensland’s state owned power grid throttled almost 170,000 air conditioners six times in just two months. I’ll say that again: last year, Queensland’s state government owned power grid throttled back almost 170,000 air conditioners six times in just two months, under a scheme called PeakSmart, to try and protect the grid as it buckled under the net zero transition. Under the PeakSmart scheme—that’s a good name, isn’t it?—users were not even told their air conditioners were being throttled. They were not even told. I have, since the start, been aware of these meters being considered, because the so-called energy transition is really an energy reduction, an energy restriction, an energy control. The objective is control. I’ve been saying this since 2016. The objective is control—furtive, unexplained control of your access to electricity; furtive, unexplained, unaccountable control of your access to electricity. So much for transparency under you lot in the Albanese Labor government. 

That’s why One Nation is moving this motion to have an inquiry into the rollout of smart meters and what consumer protections are needed. Right now, there are no consumer protections—none at all—and the public has been misled. Deceitfully, the truth is hidden. Why would they hide it? Because they’re out to get you, to screw you. What protections are actually in place to make sure power companies aren’t going to gouge Australians through a smart meter? Right now, it looks like nothing. The smart meter rollout was changed from voluntary to mandatory without any notice despite the many problems that had been raised and pointed out. Australians pointed out the many problems to the government: Why? Who benefits? It’s certainly not everyday Australians, who this Labor government dishonestly pretends to serve. Instead, it’s stealing. One Nation wants this inquiry to answer these questions and many more. 

When it comes to Australians battling greedy power companies, including foreign multinationals, One Nation backs Australians every day of the week. We back you, Australians. I encourage the Senate to send the issue of smart meters to an enquiry and to back Australian consumers being protected from greedy power companies, including foreign multinationals in charge of vital parts of our essential infrastructure. Our electricity grid is arguably the most important infrastructure in our country. Will the government oppose this reference for a Senate committee inquiry and continue to hide the truth from Australians? Or will it be open? Will you be open, transparent and honest with the Australian people 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hodgins-May): There are no further speakers. The question is that the motion put by Senator Roberts be agreed to. A division is required. We will defer that division to tomorrow. 

Debate adjourned. 

/1 Comment/by

AEMO and the Net Zero Deception

,

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) runs our entire electricity grid. Sounds like a government agency, yet it’s a private body.

No FOI’s allowed, no Senate scrutiny, no transparency.

Net zero = hide the costs, hide the damage, hide the plan.

They are taking us over a cliff – blindfolded.

Transcript

A culture of hiding behind secrecy, spin and broken promises—the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, operates our entire electricity grid. It sounds like a government agency, yet, somehow, it’s a private body. No-one’s allowed to lodge a freedom-of-information request with them. They don’t turn up to parliamentary hearings or Senate estimates. They hide from scrutiny. That’s a key word for this government and for net zero: hide. Hide the costs, hide the lack of a policy basis, hide the environmental damage, hide the economic damage, hide the social damage and hide the lack of a plan. They’re taking us blindfolded over a cliff. 

Where did it start? It started in the years from 1996 to 2007 under the LNP and John Howard’s prime ministership. He started this insanity, based, they assured us, on science. Yet six years after getting the boot in faraway London, John Howard confessed that ‘on the topic of climate science I’m agnostic’. He didn’t have the science. The whole parliament has been hijacked for the last 30 years—three decades. 

/2 Comments/by

Coal vs Renewables: Who’s Paying the Price?

,

According to the Australian Energy Regulator, the last quarter of 2024 recorded the second-highest number of extreme electricity price spikes ever, with prices exceeding $5,000 per megawatt hour. This is what happens when baseload generation is not in the mix. Coal, when operated continuously, delivers power at around $50 per megawatt hour—reliable and affordable.

Senator Ayres responded by doubling down on the government’s plan to “modernise” the system, dismissing concerns about cost and reliability. Instead of addressing the real issue—keeping affordable baseload power in the mix—the Minister ridiculed critics and pushed for more renewables, calling opposition arguments “too silly for words” and driven by “imported ideology.”

When will this government stop forcing Australians to pay record electricity prices and run our coal generators properly?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to Senator Ayres, representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mr Bowen. Minister, is coal powered electricity generation intermittent energy or base-load generation? 

Senator AYRES (Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) : Well, here I am. Senator Roberts’s question really does bell the cat in terms of where One Nation and their almost coalition partners over here in the National and Liberal parties really are on some of these climate and energy questions. If I go directly to Senator Roberts’s question, the unreliability of our current aging coal-fired power fleet is, as I cursorily read in the newspaper, what I think Minister Bowen was referring to. What is going on every single day is that there is an unplanned outage of one or more of these facilities. That unplanned redundancy causes additional cost, puts pressure on industry and reminds Australians that, under the previous government, with all of that uncertainty and all of that policy failure—I’ll come back and let you know, Senator Roberts, if I get this wrong—I think 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure. And what do we have from the Liberals and Nationals? Relitigation the same old nonsense that held Australia back—a $600 billion nuclear power plan and Mr Littleproud saying, ‘We should sweat these assets.’ If you went to some of these power stations in New South Wales, you would know that the only people that would say you should sweat that asset would be someone who had never been to one. (Time expired.) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Coal power is base-load generation. It’s designed to run continuously, and when operated continuously electricity generation from coal is reliable and affordable. It only becomes intermittent and expensive when the generator is deliberately turned on and off all the time to give preference to what is really intermittent power: solar and wind. Minister, why is the government’s energy policy set to deliberately destroying base-load power—coal? 

Senator AYRES: I suppose there are a number of responses, Senator Roberts. The first is that coal-fired power stations fail when there is a breakdown or planned maintenance. Now, planned maintenance is a good thing because you’re improving the capability of the asset. When an asset like that has gone on for so long that it can’t continue to function reliably— 

Senator Canavan: Thanks for your TED talk. 

Senator AYRES: Old ‘Koala Canavan’ over here! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, withdraw that remark. 

Senator AYRES: I withdraw. But that is the problem. So we are moving to modernise the electricity system, to deliver the lowest-cost and most reliable approach—the Australian approach—and we won’t be deterred by imported ideas about political means and weird ideologies about the future of our electricity system. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ayres. Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: According to the Australian Energy Regulator, the fourth quarter of 2024 saw the second-highest number of extreme electricity price events ever, with prices exceeding $5,000 per megawatt hour. This happens when baseload power generation is not in the mix. Instead, when run continuously, coal can run electricity at just $50 per megawatt hour. Minister, will you give Australians suffering from record high electricity prices are break and run our coal generators properly? (Time expired) 

Senator AYRES: What this government will do is continue to modernise our electricity system in the interest of industry, in the interest of households, in the interest of future industry, because what we require in this country is additionality—more generation capacity and more transmission capability. The coalition and One Nation campaign against energy generation capability around Australia, wandering around complaining, whether it’s about koalas or that somehow offshore wind projects will be bad for whales. There are whales who go up and down the eastern Australian coast, dodging container ships and bulk carriers. Are they somehow going to door themselves on a stationary offshore wind tower? It is too silly for words. It’s too silly for words, sillier than a two-bob watch, and it’s imported, weird ideology coming from overseas that’s being used to try and stop progress right here in Australia. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister Ayres. 

/3 Comments/by