Decarbonisation has completely infected our bureaucracy, with dedicated offices and lavish government grants funding a fabricated, calamitous nonproblem at the expense of everyday Australians. From wasting $444 million on the Great Barrier Reef Authority to funding endless research, this pointless transition places an escalating financial burden on taxpayers.
As these costs spiral, future governments will be forced to choose between funding essential services like health, education and social security, or chasing the myth of “saving the planet” from a natural trace atmospheric gas that’s essential to all life on earth. One Nation knows that climate variation is entirely natural.
To stop this madness, a One Nation government will immediately terminate all net zero measures, withdraw from international agreements and suspend all related spending.
Clawing back grants, terminating subsidies and renegotiating contracts will save around $10 billion annually, helping eliminate the deficit.
It’s time to stop this parasitic nonsense and focus on making Australians’ lives better, not harder.
Transcript
The government has advanced a suite of appropriation bills covering an additional $9 billion of spending for this financial year. These appropriation bills provide allocations of taxpayers’ money to maintain the government’s recurring expenditure on operational matters and on the many, many, many schemes the government is using to funnel taxpayers’ money into the pockets of their donors and friends in the net zero scam, the parasitic net zero scam.
Of the approximately $9.2 billion in spending in these bills, $2.9 billion is for net zero measures—one third. Of that, $130 million is for additional departmental expenses and the rest is funding projects. This is on top of the $1 billion allocated in the previous appropriation bills for departmental expenditure and on top of $5 billion for funding projects this financial year. And this is on top of the $24 billion that has been spent so far in off-the-books expenditure for net zero measures and the additional $9 billion which has been allocated to fund projects in the near future, for a total off-the-books spending of $33 billion. For clarity, these figures are to date, not just this financial year.
Off the books is an accounting trick the uniparty has come to rely on. It’s based on the premise that, if the government borrows money and then on lends that money to other people, that is not a budget expenditure and, as such, does not form part of the budget spending or contribute to the deficit. Now, $33 billion is a huge amount of money to have sitting off the books, much of which will result in financial loss to taxpayers when these projects fail and their mates’ projects fail. If these projects were any good, private enterprise would be building them. The fact the government has had to stump up $24 billion so far, with another $9 billion expected over the forward estimates, suggests the private sector knows something the government doesn’t know—that is, that these projects are boondoggles which will never recover their full or lifetime cost.
This includes not only the cost of the solar panel, the wind turbine, the battery transmission line and such like; it includes the installation cost, maintenance cost and replacement cost—batteries last 10 years; solar panels last 15 years, being generous; and wind turbines last 15 years. This means every piece of net zero generation and storage we have in Australia right now will have to be replaced before 2050, some twice, and replaced three times before 2060. The cost won’t end in 2025; it keeps going forever and ever, because these things have to be replaced. They have short, limited lifespans. In addition, lifetime costs include the thing net zero idealists never talk about: the disposal and remediation costs. New wind turbines are massive to tear down. They’re up to 250 metres tall, and the installation cost per turbine is over $1 million. Plus, removing them when they are damaged, catch fire or reach the end of their life costs $1 million each.
If a company wants to open a new mine in Australia, it must put aside money or a surety to cover the cost of remediation: a bond. This bond payment has been law in mining for years, and it should be there. No such law, though, exists for wind and solar installations. I can understand why. Blowing the top off a mountain to create the flat area necessary for the massive footprints these things require is permanent environmental damage. No remediation can fix it. One can’t come along after the projects have been shuttered and glue the mountain back together again. The damage, the vandalism, is permanent. In these appropriation bills, the government has made provision for subsidising the build of these things, although not removing and remediating afterwards.
Nobody has added all these expenditures together to compile a whole-of-government cost of net zero. One Nation has asked the Parliamentary Budget Office for that figure, so stay tuned. The total economic cost of the transition out to 2026, government and private sector, has been estimated at between $7 trillion and $9 trillion. These people in the government do not even know, and these people in opposition did not have a clue when they started this transition. This information is from the independent Net Zero Australia, a project of the universities of Melbourne, Queensland and Princeton. Bloomberg puts the figure at $2.4 trillion out to 2050. Net zero spend is up 400 per cent under this government, between 2022 and 2026. The expectation is that this government will keep throwing money at an imaginary, confected problem for as long as the public think humans can change the weather on a global scale. This is insane.
Decarbonisation now extends right through the bureaucracy and agencies. There are decarbonisation offices in every government department plus the net zero reporting, plus government grants to industry—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you will be in continuation. It being 12.15, we will move to senators’ statements.
These Appropriation Bills allocates an additional $9 billion in spending for the current financial year, with roughly one-third ($2.9 billion) directed toward “net zero” measures.
This Labor government is using an accounting trick by borrowing money and on-lending it, keeping $33 billion in “off-the-books” expenditure out of the formal budget deficit. This money will result in financial losses. If these projects were viable, private enterprise would be funding them.
Net-Zero infrastructure (solar panels, wind turbines, batteries) has short lifespans, requiring multiple replacements before 2050 and 2060, incurring massive, overlooked installation, maintenance and disposal/ remediation.
Unlike the mining industry, “renewable” energy projects cause permanent environmental damage to landscapes without requiring environmental bonds for remediation.
Independent groups like Net Zero Australia and Bloomberg estimates that the total economic cost of the transition ranges from trillions of dollars up to $9 trillion, while asserting that government spending on net zero has surged by 400% between 2022 and 2026.
Transcript
In accordance with the arrangements made with the whips of the major parties, I seek leave to continue my remarks, and I express my regret that I wasn’t here at the start of the debate.
Leave granted.
I’ll continue my speech from the other night. Decarbonisation now extends right through the bureaucracy and agencies. There are decarbonisation offices in every government department, plus the net zero reporting, government grants to industry and academia to research this made-up problem. It really is a fabricated nonproblem; a monstrous, calamitous fabrication that is costing the Australian people dearly. Some of these grants are substantial, including $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Authority to counter the effects of climate change. I’ll talk more about that in a minute. The further we get into the pointless, disastrous ‘transition’, the more that the burden of funding of these measures will fall on the taxpayer through direct payments, loans and sovereign guarantees, not to mention the inefficiencies—sorry, Siri is trying to talk to me.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Neill): Siri doesn’t have the call, Senator Roberts!
I’ll pay that one!
Senator Cox: You were caught out at estimates doing that. Come on, now.
Senator McKim interjecting—
You’ve got a fertile imagination. Conspiracy theorist, is it? These measures will cost so much in the years ahead that, ultimately, the government of the day will be faced with a choice of social security, free health and education or saving the planet from a natural trace atmospheric gas that’s essential to all life on earth. One Nation does not worship the sky god of warming. We know the climate varies naturally and inherently and that nothing in the current data suggests the variation is outside of normal cycles.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
We have 24,000 datasets from around the world, including CSIRO and BOM, and they prove no change in climate at all, just natural, inherent variation superimposed on cycles. A One Nation government will terminate net zero measures and withdraw from international agreements which provide the heads of power the requirement on our government to spend this money—not necessary. We will immediately suspend all government activity associated with net zero and review all expenditure and loans to see what can be clawed back legitimately under the contract terms. I suspect noncompliance with contract requirements—especially around supply agreements—is widespread, so it shouldn’t be too difficult. We will terminate all ongoing subsidies where that option is available under the contract, and we will renegotiate contracts where it’s not. This will save around $10 billion a year in recurring expenditure, which we will put towards eliminating the deficit—$10 billion taken out of this year’s budget figures.
I foreshadow my amendment No. 3662 in the committee stage to return these bills to the Treasury to have net zero spending removed and ask for the Senate’s support. It’s time to call out this parasitic net zero nonsense and get back to the real business of government: making people’s lives better, not harder, as net zero measures currently do.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you resume your seat, Senator Roberts, it would assist the Senate if you would move your motion. I believe it has been circulated as a second reading amendment.
I move:
Omit all words after “That”, substitute “further consideration of the bills be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after amendments are circulated removing all funding for net zero measures and the administration of net zero measures”.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/cRxZeI8kgXc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-14 09:58:502026-10-14 10:15:43Billions on the Line for Net Zero
Prompted by a glossy, heavily illustrated 57-page clean energy report for the Wide Bay-Burnett region that could easily have been a 10-page document, I questioned department officials regarding its substance and design.
I asked for the exact cost of this publication, whether similar reports were produced for other regions across Australia and what the cost-benefit analysis was for printing such a marketing document. I also questioned the total marketing spend of the regional development agency for the 2025-26 financial year.
Highlighting the accompanying letter’s call to advocate for a clean energy transition, I expressed my view that the brochure is nothing more than taxpayer-funded government propaganda filled with misinformation.
Minister Chisholm disagreed with my opinion and defended the government’s support for renewable energy and community engagement.
This Labor government is persisting with squandering billions of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a pipe dream, trying to “trick” people into believing that an unreliable net-zerorenewable energy transition is somehow going to control the weather.
They label any dissenting view as “misinformation” ignoring the fact that the worst offenders of climate alarmism and energy fear-mongering are in the Labor and Greens parties.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have the regional development agency, please?
Ms Rauter: They are not part of the department. The regional development authorities, do you mean?
Senator ROBERTS: Regional development agencies: outcome 3.
Ms Rauter: We are outcome 3. How about you ask your question, and I will see whether we can answer it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This glossy brochure—
Senator Chisholm: Is that from the RDA—Regional Development Australia?
Senator ROBERTS: Regional Development Australia, yes.
Ms Rauter: They are government funded authorities, but they are not part of the department. We would have to take the question on notice and direct it to the RDAs.
Senator ROBERTS: Tell me what you can answer of these questions and put on notice what you can’t. This glossy brochure was posted out in January. I received a copy, as I am sure other senators did. It’s the Industry engagement report: industry perspectives on the path to clean energy. It is for the Wide Bay-Burnett region. Wide Bay is in Queensland. We are very keen to know. I care about the people in Wide Bay Burnett. This publication is 57 pages of full-page illustrations and white space. Distilling the actual information here, it would come to about a 10-page publication. How much did this publication cost? You can take it on notice.
Ms Rauter: Yes, we would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Secondly, was this publication required by an act of parliament? Why was it even produced?
Ms Rauter: No, it is not required by an act of parliament. We do fund the Regional Development Australia organisations, which are across Australia, to work with local government, councils and others, on the regional investment framework and to make sure that that is delivered in the regions. They also support regional stakeholders, including the not-for-profit sector and local government, to seek grant opportunities. They support decarbonisation efforts that are happening in the regional areas. They build evidence for economic development. They contribute relevant data and local intelligence. We don’t require them to produce that publication, but we can certainly ask them what the process is for them going into that, and the cost.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are they doing this same exercise in other regions around Australia? My question is: how many more of these publications exist?
Ms Rauter: Again, we will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it just Wide Bay, where there has been a huge, justifiable backlash on solar and wind? You can take that question on notice.
Ms Rauter: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain to me the cost benefit of this publication being produced as a glossy brochure instead of a simple emailed PDF?
Ms Rauter: That would be a question for the RDA, specifically. We will pass that on.
Senator ROBERTS: How much did the regional development agency spend on marketing in the 2025-26 financial year? I count this as marketing.
Ms Rauter: Yes, I understand that.
Senator ROBERTS: How does the carbon dioxide footprint manage to be factored into every Infrastructure Australia application, although the department can chop down trees for this nonsense propaganda? Where is the consistency in the management of your department, Minister?
Senator Chisholm: I don’t really know that we’re responsible for that.
Senator ROBERTS: I quote from the letter that accompanied the glossy propaganda brochure: We are seeking your support to advocate for a regional clean energy transition strategy. Then they go on and name five points, including many points of misinformation. Isn’t this just propaganda from people in a region strongly opposed to solar and wind and its environmental destruction, community destruction and economic destruction, Minister? This confirms that the biggest source of misinformation and disinformation is the government, yet again.
Senator Chisholm: It would be fair to say that I disagree with you on that basis, Senator Roberts. I am supportive of renewable energy projects. I come across many people in the community who are as well. I make the point that those things are best done when there is strong community engagement with the proponents. I see evidence in many places around the country that that is happening. I think that the work of the federal government and various state governments around the place is leading to better outcomes. Councils play an important role in that.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t bother you that it is crammed with misinformation and disinformation?
Senator Chisholm: I haven’t actually seen the document that you’re talking about, Senator Roberts. I think it would be fair to say, being someone who has observed the way that you have operated in the chamber and in Senate committees over the years, we probably have a different point of view on some of these matters.
Senator ROBERTS: We certainly do. Ms Rauter, thank you so much for stepping forward. It is appreciated. I am not holding you accountable for this, just the regional development agencies. Thank you.
Ms Rauter: Not a problem, Senator.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. That’s a nice way to finish.
These questions pertain to the GenCost 2025–26 consultation draft, a collaborative report used to estimate the cheapest levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for various energy technologies.
This report assigns shorter financial lifespans to baseload and firming technologies (30 years for coal, nuclear, and hydro) compared to their physical capabilities, which artificially inflates their per-megawatt-hour costs while favouring wind and solar.
The report incorrectly excludes brownfield site advantages for coal and nuclear generation, putting them at an unfair cost disadvantage against greenfield wind and solar.
And battery backup costs are separated rather than bundled directly into wind and solar expenses, masking their true total cost.
I asked whether the government had directed agencies to produce “fraudulent costings” to support net-zero targets, an assertion strongly rejected by the officials and Senator Tim Ayres.
Dr Mayfield from the CSIRO defended the GenCost methodology as a consistent, independent and robust process developed in consultation with industry and technical experts. Because he didn’t have the specific draft on hand, Dr Mayfield took detailed questions regarding capacity factors, exact asset valuations and cost adjustments on notice.
Senator Ayres strongly defended the government’s energy transition, dismissing my position on this as “imported talking points.” He argued that the GenCost framework reflects modern economic, engineering and technological realities, such as falling battery costs and said that attempting to revive old baseload models would weaken the economy, driving up costs.
One Nation will scrap Australia’s Net Zero by 2050 policy target along with all associated legislation, mandates and subsidies. We will withdraw from all international climate commitments like the Paris Agreement and back cheap base-load energy sources like coal, gas, hydro and nuclear energy.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’d like to go to your GenCost 2025-26 consultation draft. The purpose of GenCost is to show the different costs of each type of generation when all factors are taken into account—in essence, industrial wind and solar as compared to nuclear, coal and hydro. Do you think the assumptions made in this report around assessment periods for each type of power are conducive to producing an accurate cost of full life cycle generation?
Dr Mayfield: The latest consultation draft—so our final report—is not out at this point in time—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I meant the consultation draft.
Dr Mayfield: It is the same methodology, as we’ve discussed many, many times—so, yes, we think it’s an appropriate methodology that’s being applied.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the most common uses of this report is to show Australians, the media and the government which is supposedly the cheapest levelised cost of electricity. This in turn informs the debate around which type of generation is cheapest and accordingly should be the focus of the government’s energy plans. Does this draft report make the right assumptions in the economic life of each type of generation?
Dr Mayfield: We’ve been through various assumptions; if you want to be explicit about some, that might help. We’ve talked about coal-fired power in the past. The assumptions that we have been using either are based on work that sits with AEMO or come out of the consultation process done with industry representatives as we develop the report.
Senator ROBERTS: Your answer is yes?
Dr Mayfield: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The life of the project makes a huge difference to the cost of the electricity it puts into the grid. Coal, nuclear and hydro have higher construction costs than wind or solar. They also last much longer than wind and solar, so the higher cost can be repaid across a much longer period, which makes a huge difference to the final cost of electricity. Your draft sets the life span of coal, nuclear and hydropower stations at 30 years, with industrial wind and solar at 25 years. That’s the absolute limit of cheap Chinese solar and wind installations. I would call 25 years fanciful, based upon what’s happening around the world. This draft appraises coal, hydro and nuclear over less than half their life. Wind and solar are appraised over their entire life. Can you explain that to me, please?
Dr Mayfield: If you go back to previous estimates, Mr Graham has explained all those assumptions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you to explain it. This is the latest draft.
Dr Mayfield: I will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got the answer here?
Dr Mayfield: I haven’t got the draft here with me, but I’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Coal power stations last 50 years, which the draft acknowledges before using the shorter figure anyway. You show hydro at 100 years but use 30 years anyway. You show nuclear at up to 80 years but use 30 years anyway. You are saying the decision has been taken based on the financial decision-making, which is based on risk mitigation. It’s an unrelated metric to the actual cost of building out these power stations and makes coal, hydro and nuclear artificially more expensive. Is your argument simply designed to inflate the cost of baseload power and reduce the cost of wind and solar?
Dr Mayfield: We’re technology agnostic. The assumptions are consistent across all the technologies. You’ll appreciate there’s reinvestment required during the lifetimes of all of those technologies, in various aspects. They’ve been done on a consistent basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Wind and solar reinvestment—you’re absolutely right—is after about 20 years; let’s go with 25. Coal is after 50 to 60 years, nuclear is after 60 years and hydro is after 100 years. Snowy Hydro has been going how many years—80-odd?
Dr Mayfield: You’ll have to reinvest in turbines during that time.
Senator ROBERTS: Turbines. Snowy.
Senator Ayres: All these technologies require reinvestment.
Senator ROBERTS: Not completely—
Senator Ayres: That’s not new news.
Senator ROBERTS: Maintenance is not replacement of capital.
Senator Ayres: It’s the same old argument. You don’t like the numbers provided by Australia’s experts; I understand that. There’s nothing credible about the approach that you bring to these questions. We’ll endure the same imported talking points again. Go through it; we’ll do our best to answer the questions. You will find that Dr Mayfield and others will have to refer you back to the same answers to the same questions that you insist on asking. I know you don’t like the result, but that’s science, that’s engineering and that’s economics right there.
Senator ROBERTS: And I’m all about protecting the taxpayer and the Australian citizen.
Senator Ayres: Sure. There’s not much evidence of that either!
Senator ROBERTS: In any event, your assumptions are still wrong. Nuclear is being financed over 15 years to 20 years, hydro over 15—which is crazy for a 100-year asset—and coal is under 10 years. If this was to try and make GenCost accurate, you’ve failed. Your basic assumption of the life of the asset is wrong from a financial perspective, and it’s certainly wrong from a reality perspective. Why are you making such a fundamental mistake repeatedly?
Dr Mayfield: If you can put your questions to us, I’ll take them on notice and let the experts answer those.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got it. If a One Nation government were to issue 50-year infrastructure bonds or ones for a shorter period with a rollover option to fund nuclear, coal and hydro, what would that do to your report assumptions? You would have no reason to use the life-of-project figure you use, and you would then have to use the real life one. The government issuing financing in return for owning the generation would completely ruin this core assumption of GenCost, wouldn’t it?
Senator Ayres: In the event that there was a ‘One Nation Liberal National’ uniparty government—
Senator ROBERTS: I said a One Nation government.
Senator Ayres: then you would bankrupt Australia with that kind of approach. You would drive manufacturing offshore. You would make us weaker and less secure. I know that doesn’t suit the imported talking points that you insist on running through. It’s a matter for you if you want to indulge that kind of perspective, but we are dealing with the real issues in a real economy for real firms—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what worries me.
Senator Ayres: and real generation. You are in an imaginarium of your own making.
Senator ROBERTS: If a One Nation government chose to fund the construction from consolidated revenue and own the generation, that would destroy your core GenCost assumption, wouldn’t it?
Senator Ayres: You would bankrupt the government as well as the economy in that instance, Senator. You’ve got the right to put out the funny dodges and all that sort of stuff that you guys do—that’s fine. We’re going to deal with the real things in the real economy.
Senator ROBERTS: The draft GenCost figures are large-scale solar photovoltaic, $52 to $88 per megawatt hour; onshore wind, $78 to $129 per megawatt hour; black coal, $121 to $195 per megawatt hour; large-scale nuclear, $200 to $328 per megawatt hour. The capacity factor here is important. The more power that’s generated out of the nameplate capacity, the cheaper the power. What reliability figure have you used in the lower range and higher range figure for coal and nuclear?
Dr Mayfield: I’ll take that on notice and refer you back to previous answers. We’ll get the experts to give you detailed answers to your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Did the experts produce this?
Dr Mayfield: The techno-economic people that we employ have produced that report in conjunction consultation with industry and with guidance through that process. It’s a well-used process. We think it’s a very robust process. We’re very happy to provide those answers on notice. We’ve provided many of them already.
Senator ROBERTS: What capacity figure have you used in the lower and higher range for large-scale photovoltaic and onshore wind?
Dr Mayfield: I’ll take that on notice again. I don’t have the report with me today.
Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to your answers, On notice, please, what change would assessing project life for coal at 50 years, nuclear at 60 years and hydro at 80 years have on your draft levelised cost of electricity?
Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ll take that all on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re getting through this pretty quickly, CHAIR. Coal power stations would likely go into a brownfield site, or the existing generation would be replaced with modern clean generation with higher capacity. This reduces the cost, whereas wind and solar are all greenfield—the highest cost—especially to the environment. Senator Whish-Wilson has been trying to shut down the Robbins Island wind turbines! Why have you removed the issue of brownfield versus greenfield from the calculation? It makes coal and nuclear look artificially bad, doesn’t it?
Dr Mayfield: The whole basis of the GenCost report is to look at greenfield, new generation, costs; it’s not looking at brownfield.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t consider brownfield at all?
Dr Mayfield: Not for GenCost—not for the purposes that AEMO are looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Battery—
CHAIR: Senator, you’re at 10 minutes.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just got two more.
CHAIR: Okay.
Senator ROBERTS: Battery backup is shown as a separate levelised cost of electricity. It’s only needed to firm wind and solar, so it should be shown against the cost of wind and solar. Showing it separately will produce a misleading, much lower, figure for the cost of wind and solar. Why have you chosen this misrepresentation— omitted the cost of battery backup to make wind and solar look cheaper?
Dr Mayfield: Again, I’ll take it on notice. We’ll get the experts to give you detailed answers to your questions. As I said before, it’s a robust process. We’ve provided many of those answers before.
Senator ROBERTS: Transmission lines appear to be included against wind and solar. Can you provide the annual cost here? What appears to be a $10 per megawatt hour charge would factor in how much in transmission line construction and maintenance? And will it be enough?
Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ll take that on notice and provide you with a detailed answer.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you received any instruction or direction from the government to produce fraudulent costings to justify the net zero agenda? Yes or no? It’s a simple question.
Dr Mayfield: I don’t agree with the premise of that question at all.
Senator Ayres: Senator, I can assure you this is an independent process that is robust—and it deals with the with the technology changes, and the lowest possible cost of electricity. Battery costs, for example, have fallen by 91 per cent since the 1990s—that’s the truth of it. Now, you want to take the country back to a sort of weaker, more expensive system? Really! We’re trying to build a modern electricity system. You want to put people back in the caves, basically.
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Ayres, are you not aware that Australia had the cheapest—
Senator Ayres: We are getting—
Senator ROBERTS: coal-fired power station in the world?
Senator Ayres: In the olden days, Senator—in the olden days—
Senator ROBERTS: And we’re now amongst the highest in the world—
Senator Ayres: when it was the only—
Senator ROBERTS: with solar and wind?
Senator Ayres: technology that—
Senator ROBERTS: Are you not aware of that?
Senator Ayres: was available for Australia—
Senator ROBERTS: These are basic things for manufacturing.
Senator Ayres: And, back in its day, coal was terrific—it was terrific. But the world has changed and technology has changed. These are lower cost, for a good environmental outcome. They are lower cost and they will make Australian industry more efficient. Our job, as electricity use expands, is to provide addition into the system and build a modern system. You want to take the joint backwards? Make that case. Go your hardest!
Senator ROBERTS: China burns more than 53 per cent of the world’s coal consumption every year, and manufacturing is going to China.
Senator Ayres: If you want to argue that Australia should go backwards—
Senator ROBERTS: Manufacturing is going to China.
Senator Ayres: and get weaker and poorer—which is the outcome of your kinds of policy prescriptions: less secure, weaker and poorer—then go for your life! But you’ll get the same answers from experts—
Senator ROBERTS: You’re taking us backwards on standard of living already.
Senator Ayres: and from proper, robust processes.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have any more questions?
Why is the Labor government deceiving Australians by claiming electricity prices are falling when the reality is that electricity bills are RISING?
I pointed to the facts.
Connection charges have surged from 26 cents a day to as much as $1.46 a day over the past decade, adding around $530 a year to household power bills.
Solar feed-in tariffs have fallen to as little as 5 to 15 cents per kilowatt hour, while households are being charged 25 to 45 cents per kilowatt hour for the electricity they buy from the grid.
Australians with rooftop solar are getting less for the power they generate while paying more in fixed charges and connection fees.
When I asked why Australians are being told electricity prices are falling while their bills keep rising, the government did what it does best – blame someone else and avoid the question.
Australians don’t care about Labor’s talking points. They care about what leaves their bank account every quarter.
If electricity is supposedly getting cheaper, why are Australians paying more?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. In the early 2000s, electricity companies were allowed to charge a special solar metre fee to customers with home solar. Over time, it morphed into a daily connection fee. In 2025, the Australian Energy Regulator reduced electricity charges, and energy companies responded, increasing the connection fee—in one case, up from 26c a day 10 years ago to $1.46 a day, $530 a year, 15 times the inflation rate. Minister, are the energy companies profiteering, or is your government trying to hide the real cost of electricity?
Senator Watt interjecting —
Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science): I was giving some thought to that as I got up, actually, Senator Watt. The idea that you would, as the minister for energy, conceal from Australians anticipated price rises in electricity that you had been provided and that you would make all sorts of administrative arrangements to cover that up until after an election—that dubious honour only belongs to one bloke. I can tell you he’s not a comedian, this fella, Mr Taylor, from the other place, who was the minister for energy under the Morrison government. He did share that honour with Mr Morrison for a period. You asked you asked about concealing—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: On a point of relevance, I asked about the current government’s policy, not someone else in the lower house.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll draw the minister back to your question.
Senator AYRES: If there’s anything we can provide you in addition to that answer in relation to the relationship between connection fees—these things are very clear. We have just provided, for example, starting yesterday, three free hours of solar power, which are required to be produced for the 455,000 Australians who have solar panels on their roofs and have now got a home battery, who will pay zero in electricity costs because of the support of this government. These are not people in inner-city suburbs, I can tell you, but, overwhelmingly, people in the outer suburbs and in the regions of Australia, who are benefiting from low or zero cost and delivering benefit to the rest of the electricity system. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Electricity feed-in tariffs—the price energy companies pay people for rooftop solar electricity fed into the grid—have fallen. Retailers pay 5c to 15c per kilowatt hour on new contracts while charging 25c to 45c for additional power plus $530 a year just for connection. Minister, did you deceive Australians into installing rooftop solar to save money when the benefit is being ripped away in increased connection charges and reduced feed-in tariffs?
Senator AYRES: Senator, I know that One Nation doesn’t like solar electricity. I know. Australians have benefited from this. Many, many households, pensioners and working Australians are benefiting from having solar on their home. Many hundreds of thousands of households are benefiting from batteries. Now, I know you don’t like it. I know One Nation doesn’t like it. I know you’ve led the National Party into not liking it—they don’t like it any more—and, of course, dragged the Liberal Party into this far-right vortex and into taking wilder and wilder positions that have got nothing to do with the experience of suburban and regional Australians who have benefited from solar on their roofs, benefited from batteries in their homes, benefited— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is your government deceiving everyday Australians, telling them electricity prices are falling when, owing to connection fees, electricity bills are actually rising and rising quickly?
Senator AYRES: It will be a source of disappointment. Every time Australia succeeds, it’s a source of heartache and misery over there, isn’t it? You feel sad when Australia does well.
We are making progress. There are 22 gigawatts of new generation capacity in the grid. Default market offer shows that the Albanese government’s work in this area, after a decade of disinvestment and decay in the electricity system—it was utterly irresponsible, what Mr Taylor did. He wrecked our fuel refineries. He wrecked our electricity system—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts on a point of order?
Senator Roberts: It is on relevance. Why are electricity bills rising? I didn’t ask about someone in the lower house.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will draw the minister back to your question.
Senator AYRES: He wrecked our electricity system, wrecked our fuel refineries, didn’t invest in transmission—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Ayres.
Senator AYRES: and did more to damage Australian energy security—
I strongly supported Senator Colbeck’s motion regarding the sale of Rushy Lagoon, Tasmania’s largest agricultural property.
The Albanese Labor government, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, used $69 million of YOUR money (nearly half of the $142 million purchase price) alongside foreign investment firms to price local farmers out of the market. The new owners, Tasmania Natural Asset Trust (TNAT), plan to destroy 9,000 hectares of prime dairy and beef land to plant 12 million pine trees for “carbon credits”.
Rushy Lagoon was a thriving property with a rich history of agricultural production, including the Ringarooma River irrigation pipeline, supporting 30,000 head of livestock, dairy operations, and grain and potato storage.
The government provided an additional $8.8 million grant to help turn prime food-producing land into a timber plantation, all to generate carbon dioxide credits and woodchips.
This project sacrifices regional communities and food security for city-centric climate ideology. The promised jobs are mostly short-term, while real breadwinner jobs are 25 to 30 years away.
Australia already has 1.6 million hectares of timber plantations. The real crisis in the timber industry is driven by soaring energy bills caused by net-zero policies, red tape and intrusive bureaucracy.
This purchase is part of a broader ideological war on red meat, dairy and farming, compounded by water policies destroying agricultural productivity.
With 99% of the local community opposing the sale, One Nation will do everything in its power to unwind this deal and ensure Australia’s best farmland is returned to food production.
One Nation will bring this “green” agenda to a halt on day one of our government.
Transcript
I thank Senator Colbeck for his motion, which One Nation strongly supports. Rushy Lagoon is Tasmania’s largest agricultural property, covering 21,745 hectares in the north-east of Tassie. The property sold recently for $142 million, with settlement due last week. The new owner is a special-purpose vehicle called Tasmania Natural Asset Trust, TNAT, with three shareholders. The federal government, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, contributed $69 million—almost half. This is taxpayer money, not government money. The remaining $73 million came from UK investment companies Gresham House and Aviva Investors. The latter has BlackRock as its largest shareholder.
The previous owners were New Zealand’s Pye family, who held the property for 30 years. In that time, the Pye family built the Ringarooma River irrigation pipeline, which, with dams and 11 centre pivots, provided irrigated cropping across 1,100 hectares. What an amazing achievement. This supported a massive dairy operation, with two automated milking parlours and substantial storage vats. The shearing sheds and stockyards supported 30,000 head of livestock. Improvements included grain and potato storage sheds to feed the world. The property has a main homestead and workers cottages. In short, until the Albanese Labor government got its dirty hands on Rushy station, the property was actively involved in growing food to feed Australia and the world with foresight and ingenuity.
This sale is a perfect example of the Albanese government hollowing out the bush, including by covering prime farmland with industrial solar and wind installations, transmission lines and, in this case, pine plantations. For those who don’t know—I learned this recently—nothing native grows under pine. Over the next five years, the new owners plan to plant roughly 12 million radiata pine seedlings across 9,000 hectares of the farm to generate an estimated 3.2 million carbon dioxide credit units—try eating them!—each production cycle.
There it is. This ideology driven, delusional, dishonest Labor government is turning Tasmania’s largest agricultural producer into a subsidised farm for carbon dioxide credits. In case the government wants to pretend this was nothing to do with them, the Albanese government provided an $8.8 million grant under the Support Plantation Establishment program before the land sale had been approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board. It was a taxpayer funded grant. Turning productive farmland into a timber plantation was planned and financed through deliberate Albanese government policy. Taxpayer money is being used to destroy productive farmland. It is a measure in part justified through the timber production, which will eventually be used for housing, so they say, which could happen in 25 to 30 years time when the trees are ready for harvest. That’s not going to help the people sleeping in cars, sleeping under bridges, sleeping in tents and sleeping in caravans right around Australia because of this government’s policies. Given the miserable performance of this Albanese government in providing for the housing industry, we might still need the timber in 30 years time.
By the way, those jobs Labor is claiming will be created are largely short-term jobs ripping out 100 years of farm improvements and then planting seedlings. That’s it. The real, breadwinner jobs will occur during harvesting, and those jobs will be 25 to 30 years away. The local community will not survive until then, but Labor and the Greens don’t care about that. This agenda is about sacrificing the bush to win votes in the city. It’s about sacrificing the regions, which feed Australia, which are crucial for the income of this country, to satisfy the city. Until the trees are mature, all the Tasmania Natural Asset Trust will produce is woodchips, most likely to be burnt for electricity to earn Albanese government issued large-scale generation certificates.
Let’s review it so far. The Labor government spent $69.9 million to force the price of Tasmania’s largest agricultural producer so high that local farmers could not afford to buy it. It knocked them out of the market. Then they spent another $8.8 million to encourage the new owners to grow timber, not food. Then they will spend more taxpayer money giving certificates for woodchipping those trees and in turn burning them for power. This is insane. Under this arrangement, the government is giving money to itself and destroying our best farmland and productivity in the process.
The truth is that Australia does not need this timber. According to ABARES, there are already 271,000 hectares of timber plantation in Tassie alone, part of 1.6 million hectares of timber plantation right around Australia. Nine thousand hectares of timber going into the national estate of 1.6 million hectares is not going to make any difference to timber supply. This is a lie. If the government were serious about increasing our plantation area, it would look to the 800,000 hectares of native plantation forests that have recently been locked up to prevent logging, despite there being seven million hectares of suitable forests. It just gets worse and worse.
Logging has never taken a large percentage of the national timber estate—just 10 per cent—and logging does not destroy those forests. They remain habitat for native fauna and flora because they’re selective. Of course, this does not include old-growth forests, which One Nation would protect. I note the Greens and the Labor Party are actively clear-felling old-growth forests for industrial wind and solar installations and the related access roads and transmission lines, yet non-destructive logging is the problem, so they say. The real reason Australia’s timber supply is falling is that timber mills can’t pay their power and energy bills. Net zero power costs and intrusive bureaucracy are killing our precious timber industry. One Nation will lower power prices—we’ve given you the policies—remove the red tape, remove the green tape and remove the blue UN tape and encourage the Australian timber industry and the jobs it creates. We want jobs now, not in 30 years.
Rushy Lagoon is about hollowing out the bush and hollowing out the regions. It’s about this Albanese government’s ideological war on red meat and dairy in the name of saving the planet from nature’s harmless trace atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide. Importantly, the war on cows is based on supposed science that is fundamentally wrong. The methane cycle has no impact on the environment. It’s a closed loop. A more important question is this: what are people going to eat if this Labor government continually destroys Australia’s agricultural capability? Only last week, SunRice laid off 78 workers in the Deniliquin and Leeton food processing plants because this government is knowingly, deliberately, deceitfully taking irrigation water off farmers and sending it out to sea. Listen to this: last year, over 4,000 gigalitres of water were sent out to sea against a basin plan target of 2,000 gigalitres—double the target wasted into the ocean. Why? It was so irrigators could not use the water to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. Go for it, Labor! You’re destroying farming in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
Labor is just one part of the uniparty. The other part of the uniparty, the Liberal-Nationals coalition, introduced the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in their 2007 Water Act, which has a list of aims for the act, one of which is to enforce international agreements. What the hell is that doing in our water act? Farming industry body TasFarmers strongly condemned the buyout of Rushy Lagoon, calling it a ‘disgraceful outcome’ that locks up prime dairy and beef country into a ‘monoculture pine plantation’. They nailed it on both. It is just so they can ‘tick a carbon abatement box’. A TasFarmers survey revealed that 99 per cent of local community respondents oppose the sale—99 per cent. For this reason, the new owners are now talking about undertaking ecotourism and community projects to moderate the fallout, and the state Liberal government is now holding an inquiry into its own stupid decision to allow the purchase. I mean, this is farcical. One Nation will do everything in its power to unwind this deal and ensure Australia’s best farmland is devoted to food production—to food.
Australia’s farmers have had enough of the Liberal-Labor-Greens war on the bush in the name of saving the environment, killing the environment in the name of saving the planet. One Nation will bring this agenda to a halt on day one of our government.
During Question Time, I asked Finance Minister Katy Gallagher for the real bottom line on Snowy Hydro 2.0.
Not just the construction cost. I asked for the true total to taxpayers: interest on the debt, transmission lines, endless maintenance, and the required wind and solar replacements.
The response? Labor admits they don’t even know how much it will cost or when it will be finished. A recent ANAO audit confirmed there is no reliable system to track future costs, no completion baseline, and no quality data.
Originally pitched as a $2 billion project, it’s already blown out to $42 billion — and that’s just a fraction of the final bill. When you factor in the full life cycle costs and the massive grid overhauls needed, taxpayers are staring down at $100 billion plus in costs for a project that will lose money every year, and provide a tiny amount of electricity at a totally unaffordable price.
Yet, Labor refuses to cancel it.
Reliable, low-cost clean coal power stations could secure our energy grid today without bankrupting the nation, however Labor remain fixated on Net Zero at all costs and hardworking Australians are paying the price.
It’s time to stop the waste and put cheap, reliable power first.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, regarding the cost to taxpayers of the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme. Minister, can you inform the Senate how much Snowy Hydro 2.0 will cost to complete, including cost of construction; capital costs through to the end of the financing cycle, meaning interest on the debt; maintenance through the same period; the cost of transmission lines dedicated to this project, including maintenance; and, finally, the industrial wind and solar installations, including cyclical replacement, needed to generate the power? In short, if it’s built and it’s paid off, how much all up is this thing going to cost?
Senator Gallagher: I’m happy to update the chamber with the information that I have available to me on Snowy 2.0. I think you’ll remember that, when we came to government, we inherited a project that was having significant difficulties. If you remember, I think former prime minister Turnbull announced this project and said it would cost $2 billion. It had not had a business case done. There had been no scoping done. There had been no surveys done of the geological environment that the project was going to be built in, and so there was a significant reset probably in the first couple of years of our government, and that increased the project total cost to in the order of $12 billion. Currently, the Snowy board is undertaking a cost reassessment for the total project cost. We have not received that work yet. It is due to the government towards the end of July. I would say that Snowy 2.0 is more than half built. It is an important project for the nation in terms of the security and stability of our energy grid. It is an important project, but, as to any further reassessment of the costs, the information that I have are the ones where we took that initial reset to properly scope the project, get it back on track and work with the organisation to deliver the project when it was raised to $12 billion.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian National Audit Office audit released this month found significant shortcomings, including no reliable system to track future costs, no base line for project completion and no quality data with which to work these things out. In short, we don’t know how long it’s going to take and how much it’s going to cost. Just like the uniparty’s net zero, there’s no plan. Minister, will you cancel this project?
Senator Gallagher: No, the government will not do that. As I said, it is an important project. I think I saw a figure that said it was 72 per cent complete, but I will correct that if I am wrong. I can’t find that number in front of me, but I was reading some documents about Snowy Hydro on the weekend. In relation to the ANAO report—I should say this because you didn’t—it did say that the management of the project has been partially effective and there were, I think, five or so recommendations which outlined deficiencies in some project governance arrangements. Snowy 2.0 has accepted, I think, the vast majority of those recommendations. It is an important project for the stability and security of our energy system. It’s an important project to get done, but it has been a troubled project from the beginning, including when it was so poorly implemented initially by those opposite.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Labor appears to be upset about Senator Whitten signing a contract to sell his shares in September 2023, almost two years before his Senate nomination. Minister, at what point do you accept that a clean coal power station provides cheaper power, much more of it, than this fantasy project costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps a trillion, before it’s paid off? When will you give up this fantasy?
Senator Gallagher: Again, Senator Roberts, this project is important for the security and stability of the energy grid. In relation to coal-fired power stations, there have been none built in this country for decades, and, indeed, under the former government, I think there was $3 million allocated to Collinsville to explore that. I don’t know what happened to that and where that project ended, but we heard nothing from it. The market is not building new coal-fired power stations. They’re not. If they were able to deliver the energy that you say they would be able to do in a way that you want them to do, the market would be investing in them. They’re not. The market is investing in renewables because it delivers cheaper and more reliable energy. We’ve seen that, indeed, in some announcements that Minister Bowen has made in recent times about the wholesale price of electricity coming down because of the amount of renewables in the system.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/prBzMouEYrc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-20 10:11:442026-08-20 10:54:48Clean Coal vs. Snowy Hydro: Which One Makes Sense?
I asked Minister Gallagher a simple question about the true cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0. Unsurprisingly, I got a response, just not an answer.
Economic analysts like Robert Gottliebsen projects that this project could cost taxpayers over $1 trillion by the time it’s finished. While One Nation believes this figure is far too high, the lack of proper planning, financial analysis, cost control and transparency makes an accurate analysis impossible.
How much will electricity have to cost for taxpayers to get their money back? They don’t know. They are making this up as they go along!
One Nation will:
❌ Close down Snowy 2.0 before it sends the country broke.
❌ Remediate the environmental damage.
❌ Build clean, reliable coal-fired power to slash the cost of living.
A One Nation government will stop this madness, balance the budget and put Australians first.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank You. I take note of Minister Gallagher’s response—it wasn’t an answer—to my question regarding the urgent need to close down Snowy Hydro 2.0 before it sends us broke. Robert Gottliebsen, not a man to be taken lightly, has projected the cost of this project at over $1 trillion after allowing for capital costs, maintenance, transmission line construction and maintenance costs, industrial solar and wind installations necessary to provide the power, and regular renewal of these renewables—because they only last 15 years—from now until the project is finished and paid for, likely in 2060. Then add in the annual subsidies, because Snowy 2.0 will always run at a loss and you’ll be paying for it. How much will the power have to be priced at to get our money back? They don’t know. They’re making this up as they go along. What a metaphor for the whole so-called net zero transition, a transition to poverty! One Nation will close this project down, remediate the environmental damage and replace the generation of power with beautiful, clean coal-fired power, lowering the cost of living for all Australians and helping us balance the budget.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Uk6AbbFJ_vw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-20 09:30:272026-08-20 10:02:48Time to Pull the Plug on Snowy 2.0
During this Estimates hearing back in February I questioned Dennis Barnes, the CEO of the infamous Snowy Hydro 2.0 that’s estimated to cost taxpayers $12 billion … for now.
This project began without a transparent business case and is currently locked into an anti-competitive contractor structure whilst relying on a cost-plus model that leaves taxpayers carrying the blowouts.
Add years of delays, poor early planning, and constant political blame-shifting, and the project looks less like nation-building and more like a multibillion dollar waste of taxpayer money.
Despite the project’s spiralling costs and repeated failures, the government continues to shift blame rather than accept responsibility.
Barnaby Joyce has openly acknowledged his mistake, yet those overseeing Snowy Hydro 2.0 refuse to show the same accountability.
And it’s you. The Australian taxpayers, that are expected to foot the bill.
One Nation says: it’s time to cut our losses on this white elephant and get back to what works – cheap base-load energy.
Transcript
CHAIR: Thank you. I’ll give the call to Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. Good evening, Mr Barnes.
Mr Barnes: Good evening.
Senator ROBERTS: Your principal contractor is FGJV, Future Generation Joint Venture, which is three companies: Webuild, Clough and Lane Construction. Webuild as an Italian company who has across the construction arc of Snowy Hydro bought out Clough and Lane Constructions, so the joint venture is Webuild, Webuild and Webuild. Is that correct?
Mr Barnes: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s significant because one arm of Webuild is unlikely to find fault or offer a cheaper option than another arm of Webuild. They really have this project in their grip, don’t they?
Mr Barnes: We have a principal contractor called Future Generation Joint Venture. That joint venture was chosen through a competitive process before my time. Circumstances meant that Clough, who went into receivership, I believe, in 2022, was acquired by Webuild at that time. The contractual counterparty for Snowy Hydro has not changed.
Senator ROBERTS: So who’s the contractual partner?
Mr Barnes: Future Generation Joint Venture.
Senator ROBERTS: Which is Webuild, Webuild, Webuild.
Mr Barnes: There are three Webuild subsidiaries.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. So the current contract with Webuild uses an incentivised target cost model, also called a cost-plus margin. Is that correct?
Mr Barnes: The important part is the incentivised bit. There are elements of the project which are more complex and challenging, which are on a cost-recovery basis, but is a large proportion of the contract where the contractor Future Generation Joint Venture is incentivised to do a better job on time, on cost, and, if they don’t, then they suffer some penalties.
Senator ROBERTS: But, essentially, it’s cost-plus margin.
Mr Barnes: Elements of it are cost-plus margin; elements of it are incentivised target costs, where the contractor is incentivised to deliver the lowest cost and fastest outcome, and, if they don’t, then they incur penalties.
Senator ROBERTS: Being cost-plus, the higher the cost, the more money the contractor makes through the plus margin part.
Mr Barnes: There is a series of triggers and caps within the contract which mean that the contractor doesn’t continue to earn as the cost of the project increases. In fact, the recovery from the contractor means their return goes down.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you use external auditors to ensure every cost is legit?
Mr Barnes: We have a monthly process conducted by Ernst & Young, who go through every line item and every subcontractor payment and assure those to us.
Senator ROBERTS: So they’re external auditors?
Mr Barnes: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: This question might actually be good news. How many apprentices and trainees are working on Snowy Hydro? I understand you have a school based apprenticeships and traineeships program.
Mr Barnes: I think the round number—and we can provide the detail on Snowy Hydro as opposed to Snowy 2—is more than 40 people in what we call development programs. That include apprentices, vacation students and graduates—across that spectrum. We can provide the detail. We do produce a report each year with that input. We’re happy to provide that.
Senator ROBERTS: One Nation believes very much in apprenticeships. They used to be a fantastic system, and they’ve been peeled off.
Mr Barnes: I’m a product of an apprenticeship myself, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. Minister, without reflecting on the performance of Mr Barnes, who is making good progress, you understand that the taxpayers are annoyed that the cost just keeps going up and up under the current model. It started without an open business case or cost-benefit analysis. Costs will continue to go up through 2028. Is that correct?
Senator Ayres: Yes. I think this was a project that commenced under the—
Senator ROBERTS: Turnbull government.
Senator Ayres: Turnbull government, when Mr Joyce was the deputy prime minister. Mr Joyce and that government announced the program. It’s a little bit like some of the dam projects that Mr Joyce constantly talks about. I think he said he was going to deliver 100 dams during the life of the Abbott-Morrison-Turnbull catastrophe—and delivered one.
Senator ROBERTS: Which one was that?
Senator Ayres: I don’t know, but one out of 100—one per cent. A lot of talk, not much water.
Senator ROBERTS: He found it very frustrating, didn’t he?
Senator Ayres: Well, he wasn’t much good. The assessment that was made on Snowy 2.0 was that the cost escalation was partly due to what was described as design immaturity at final investment decision and site conditions and geology, which should have been known at the time. Unlike Mr Joyce and Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor—all these characters—we haven’t covered up—
Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t mentioned Sussan Ley.
Senator Ayres: I’m only pointing at the people who are responsible. I don’t know about—maybe, maybe; certainly Mr Joyce is at the heart of this free-wheeling catastrophe. We haven’t covered up the costs, and we haven’t covered up the delays. What we, as a government, have done is work with Mr Barnes and the team to make sure that this nation-building project gets back on track. It is an important project for our future energy security. Despite the damage of a ham-fisted start, with a focus on announcements and the sort of approach that was taken by Mr Joyce and his colleagues, we are working hard. The project is now 70 per cent complete. It’s still got some quite substantial work to go. You are right to point to work that has been done by Snowy and contractors in terms of apprenticeships. That’s a good contribution. We’re very focused on this project proceeding as quickly as possible in as low cost a way as possible but transparently. We don’t think good public policy is supported by deliberately concealing facts about important national projects like this.
Senator ROBERTS: It did bother me that Prime Minister Turnbull at the time heavily redacted the business case. That certainly did bother me because I wasn’t in favour of it at the start. But its cost has gone from roughly $2 billion, I think, to about $20 billion.
Senator Ayres: I might go to Mr Barnes on the cost questions because I think we should be precise. The cost has escalated significantly, but let’s have some precision.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had a lot of imprecisions in the past. Is it worth continuing?
Mr Barnes: The cost approval that was budgeted was $5.9 billion, and the project reset that we concluded in 2023 was $12 billion.
Senator Ayres: I thought the figure was closer to $12 billion than $20 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: With all the extra transmission lines and all the ancillaries?
Senator Ayres: Yes, well these are nation-building projects that are required to deliver an electricity system. I agree with Mr Joyce 1.0, not 2.0 or whatever version he is now. In 2020, he said: The Federal Government has delivered millions of dollars of investment already for renewable energy generation right here on our doorstep in places like Inverell and Glen Innes. He then went on to say: We’ve made massive investments in the New England into renewable energy— I’m passionate about this because it’s where I come from. We’ve made massive investments in the New England into renewable energy, in fact we’re one of the biggest renewable energy hubs in Australia. Just like the Inland Rail, others talked about it for years and I made sure it happened.
Senator ROBERTS: And he now has the courage to admit his folly.
Senator Ayres: In 2021, he then went on to say, ‘In the long term, we understand that there may be a transition to other fuel sources, and we’ve got to make sure that we’re also part of that transition,’ something his constituents agree with. In 2017, he said: With other projects like the Sapphire Wind Farm going ahead— and here he is backing in a wind farm that he was cutting the ribbon at, extolling the virtues of this very important development—
Senator ROBERTS: And he’s had the courage to recognise he was wrong.
Senator Ayres: He said: With other projects like the Sapphire Wind Farm going ahead, it also shows that the New England is leading the way in renewable energy production and I will continue to advocate for the region as a growing power supplier for Australia. Before his decline to where he’s got to now, he said some quite commonsense things, this bloke.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, at least he’s got the strength of character to admit he was wrong.
Senator Ayres: He’s a long way away from common sense now.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s something that you haven’t done, despite the rising cost of electricity.
Senator Ayres: He’s a long way away from common sense now.
CHAIR: Senators, thank you for that exchange. Senator Roberts, I will have to wind you up.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/t22LKdNqnqo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-06 12:42:582026-07-06 12:43:02Snowy 2.0: A Masterclass in Government Failure
The “global push” for Net Zero by 2050 is a myth. China’s target is 2060, India’s is 2070, and the US has pulled out. Australia is joining a minority club that only accounts for 30% of global “emissions”, in turn crippling our economy while the biggest polluters “keep on polluting.”
Of course, Matt Kean doesn’t agree with this, saying that over 80% of global GDP is committed to Net Zero. He said, if Australia doesn’t jump on the clean energy train, we get left behind by global markets and investors.
Wind and solar are driving power bills through the roof. We went from the cheapest electricity to the most expensive outside of Europe. Coal demand is actually increasing globally.
How does Matt Kean respond to this? He cites Bloomberg data that show new solar and wind are way cheaper than new coal and that renewables are driving prices down.
The climate agenda is built on “dodgy modelling.” Shutting down farmland for carbon credits is killing agriculture, and green jobs aren’t replacing real job losses.
The Labor government is destroying Australia’s industry for a “climate scam.”
A One Nation government will end UN Net Zero, exit the UN Paris Agreement and re-energise Australia with cheap, reliable electricity – putting more money back in your pocket.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing.
Mr Kean: Nice to see you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Good to see you again. Mr Kean, last estimates you gave me an update on your statement last year which provided net zero metrics. They were your metrics—specifically, what percentage of the world was covered by net zero mandates. You might remember that.
Mr Kean: Yes, we talked about it last time.
Senator ROBERTS: These figures were 78 per cent of global emissions, you said, and 79 per cent of GDP and 87 per cent of the global population. These figures, we’ve found, are flawed. China’s target is not 2050; it’s 2060.
Mr Kean: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: India’s is 2070. The United States has pulled out altogether. Our target is 2050, at which time Australia will share our misery with countries having just about 30 per cent of emissions, about 40 per cent of GDP and just 20 per cent of the world’s population. Why pretend net zero by 2050 is the dominant position, when in fact we’re in a minority, based on your metrics?
Mr Kean: That’s just not true, Senator. You’re obviously entitled to your opinions—
Senator ROBERTS: They’re not opinions; they’re facts.
Mr Kean: But you’re not entitled to your own facts. The reality is that 195 countries have signed up to the Paris Agreement. We’ll get you some figures shortly as to how many countries have signed up to net zero by 2050. But you make the point yourself. China and India have signed up to net zero. The majority of the world’s GDP has committed to this global effort to confront global warming. If you’re suggesting that Australia should be left behind from where markets are going, where capital is going, where investment and opportunity are going, then you’re arguing for a poorer country, and that’s not something I want to see.
Senator ROBERTS: Rather than saying these are my opinions, these are based on hard facts. The facts I told you are truthful.
Mr Kean: Sorry, what are the facts? A hundred and ninety-five countries have signed up under the Paris Agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that later.
Mr Kean: The majority of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero—
Senator ROBERTS: China’s target is not 2050 but 2060. India’s is 2070. The US is out altogether—the second biggest economy in the world. Germany is making signs of reversing. Our target is 2050, at which time just about 30 per cent of emissions will come from net net-zero-by-2050 countries, which are about 40 per cent of GDP and just 20 per cent of the world’s population. If they’re wrong, show me where.
Mr Kean: But the majority of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero emissions. The markets that underwrite—
Senator ROBERTS: Not by 2050.
Mr Kean: Committed to net zero emissions. The markets that have underwritten our prosperity for generations are changing the type of goods and services they’re looking for, and we’re very well placed to prosper in that low-carbon global economy. I’m not sure why you don’t want Australia to benefit from this global megatrend. Maybe you could explain.
Senator ROBERTS: It is because I want the cheapest energy possible in Australia.
Mr Kean: I’m trying to explain to you that the majority of the world’s GDP is heading in this direction. It’s something like 84 per cent. Over 80 per cent of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero emissions. That means they’re looking for low-carbon steel, cement, energy, transport—a whole range of things—and we’re really well placed to provide it, so we can do well by doing good. I don’t know why you’ve got a problem with that.
Senator ROBERTS: The forecasts for coal consumption are increasing dramatically. It’s not decarbonisation.
Mr Kean: The demand for energy use is increasing dramatically, and the proportion of renewables is increasing dramatically. I think you’ll find that there’s more investment going into renewables than there is any other form of technology. What that means is that Australians can benefit because we can produce renewable energy at a cheaper cost than most other countries. That means that, for energy-intensive industries, we’ll have a competitive advantage, and we should be grabbing that with both hands rather than people like you standing in the way of Australia’s biggest economic opportunity.
Senator ROBERTS: The cheapest electricity user has a competitive advantage, and right now every country that has adopted a significant proportion of solar and wind has increased its costs and is not competitive. We used to have the cheapest electricity in the world. Now, outside of Europe, we’re the most expensive, and only three countries in Europe are more expensive than us. We’re on the road to bankruptcy.
Mr Kean: That’s just wrong. You’ve got to be called out for that nonsense. It’s not true.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fact.
Mr Kean: It’s not fact.
Senator McDONALD: [Inaudible]
Mr Kean: Can I address that? Today—
Senator McDONALD: What about record coal demand—
Mr Kean: renewable energy is putting downward—
CHAIR: Let me just pause for a moment. I’m sorry to interrupt you, Mr Kean. Senator MacDonald—
Senator McDONALD: Sorry. It’s not my questions. I’m sorry.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts has asked the questions. If you’ll address his question. Senator MacDonald, if you’ll allow him to do so, please.
Senator ROBERTS: You said you were going to give me some figures?
Senator Ayres: Well, I’m not sure there’s any value in trying to engage you on this question. You’ve been impervious to facts and argument and the Australian interest the whole time I’ve been engaging with you on this committee about these questions. It’s imported ideology from One Nation. Exporting jobs—that’s your approach. It’s the One Nation-National Party coalition here, and only one part of that is winning that argument. Senator Henderson interjecting—
Senator Ayres: I can’t help you with this. There’s a set of facts. Mr Kean‘s doing his best to work through them. You’re shouting over the top of him. We’ll do our best.
CHAIR: Alright, let’s get let’s get back to this because we are late in the evening.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll ask my second question.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2050, Australia, the UK, Japan, Canada, some South American countries and the EU—basically the 2050 club—will in your world have zero greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s emissions will be down because our economy will be decimated. China, India and the US will hoover up our industry and leave us with no emissions because we will have no industry. Your sessions often talk about modelling. Have you modelled what the Australian economy will look like in 2050 from the perspective of GDP per person and share of national income going to wage and salary earners? These are the key metrics for standard of living. Have you modelled them?
Mr Kean: Well, I was trying to answer your question from earlier, though Senator Ayres took up the platform from me. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which is a very recognised analyst of energy matters, looked at the cost of new-build energy. It quotes solar at about US$39 per megawatt-hour. Wind is a bit higher, at $40 to $55 per megawatt-hour. Battery prices fell eight per cent last year to about $108 per kilowatt-hour. Again, in January, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated that levellised cost of electricity for new coal was about A$297 per megawatt-hour without a carbon price. In Australia, new solar was $68 a megawatt-hour; wind, $115 a megawatthour; and then new coal without a carbon price, nearly $300 a megawatt-hour. So you’re arguing nonsense. Clearly, from an expert analyst—
Senator ROBERTS: Bloomberg has also said we’re going to transition to perfectly good—
Mr Kean: I’m just trying to say the facts are there, but you’re just quoting nonsense. I’m reading from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. I’m happy to table Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s report.
Senator ROBERTS: Please do.
Mr Kean: Maybe you could table your report from the dark recesses of the web.
Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest, the desperate, the fearful. That’s what you two are doing.
Mr Kean: Okay, but you can’t table that. I’m reading from—
Senator ROBERTS: Don’t label me. Just use hard facts. I’ll happily table it.
Mr Kean: I’m happy to table the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report.
Senator Ayres: He just did, Senator Roberts—honestly.
Senator ROBERTS: To drill down on this: Australia’s system of carbon credit units encourages productive farmland to be shut down and local native vegetation replanted in return for carbon dioxide credits. This reduces agricultural and grazing land below critical mass for survival. Have you modelled the reduction in agricultural output—food, fibre and red meat—and the increased costs of agriculture?
Mr Kean: This is a huge economic opportunity for Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you modelled them?
Mr Kean: There have been various models done.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you modelled them?
Mr Kean: There have been various—
Senator ROBERTS: You’re not answering my question.
Mr Kean: But I’ve said there are various models that the Climate Change Authority relies on for this information.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, give us the names of those?
Mr Kean: We can provide you with the relevant documents.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Ms Rowley: I just note that, in the authority’s advice to the government with respect to the 2035 target, one of the inputs to that, as mentioned earlier, was modelling by CSIRO. It looked at it looked at—
Senator ROBERTS: The same people that did GenCost.
Ms Rowley: If I could finish my answer—it looked at emissions reduction opportunities across the economy, including through land based sequestration and in agriculture. It showed what it would look like for the economy. To your point earlier about what it does for GDP and GDP per capita, the GDP growth was unaffected by the decarbonisation of the economy. From memory, the economy continued to grow at 2.7 per cent per annum whilst the economy decarbonised, including through enhanced sequestration across the landscape. CSIRO modelling, as well as other work that the authorities have drawn on and is published by agencies such as ABARES, Ernst & Young and other sources, shows that that can be done whilst agriculture sustains and, indeed, increases its production and increases its output.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide us with the title of that CSIRO study?
Ms Rowley: The CSIRO report is directly quoted in the authority’s advice to the government on the 2035 target and it’s available on the CSIRO website. We’re very happy to table to table it as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Great. In December estimates, you pointed out that one of Australia’s largest exports, coal, was facing a future of reduced demand from overseas buyers. Korea was mentioned as an example. By 2050, we will have exited our own domestic use of coal for power. That means more reductions in our GDP, more jobs gone and more communities closed down. The future for our economy is bleak because of net zero measures, isn’t it?
Mr Kean: It doesn’t mean those things at all, and I pointed out earlier why it doesn’t mean those things. As I said, Bloomberg New Energy Finance say that the cost of new coal is about $300 per megawatt hour, compared with the costs of wind and solar and batteries, which continue to fall; they’re much cheaper, and they continue to come down the cost curve. So actually what will see Australia become more prosperous is embracing those new technologies and helping let them use it to underwrite a new era of prosperity for our industry, for our manufacturing sector and for our community, and that’s something we should be grabbing with both hands. That’s something you and I can agree on: we want Australia to be more prosperous. And making decisions based on the facts and the evidence is exactly how we do that.
Ms Rowley: And perhaps I could add, Senator, noting your interest in modelling—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m vary wary of modelling, believe me! The whole climate scam is based on dodgy modelling.
Ms Rowley: But you were interested in looking at the sources. In terms of the economic growth opportunities that come with the transition to net zero for Australia, explored in Treasury’s modelling for the government’s net zero plan, it included analysis of the development of new industries, like green metals and other clean fuels—and there are figures in the report if you’d like to look—comparing that with the anticipated decline in Australia’s fossil fuel exports as the world decarbonises. We don’t control global demand for our fossil fuel exports but we do have opportunities to build and grow new clean industries, which, at least according to the Treasury analysis, could account for an even greater share of our economy by 2050.
Senator ROBERTS: Kumbaya! What a wonderful world! You’re not saying these are net zero jobs, are you?
Mr Kean: Could I just say, to reiterate what the CEO said, that the CSIRO modelling did show that the economy continues to grow under the decarbonisation pathways we’ve modelled.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the GenCost modelling from CSIRO?
Mr Kean: Yes, I am.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. You’re aware of the flaws?
Senator Ayres: Oh, honestly.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question: employment in Australia went backward in April, didn’t it? The number of people in a job was less at the end of the month than at the start. Green jobs are doing a crap job of making up for job losses in the productive economy. Mr Kean, what will be the employment rate in 2050 under net zero? How many more people will lose their jobs?
Mr Kean: Well, I must reject the premise of the way you framed that question, and I’ll cite the treasurer of New South Wales, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, who this week said that New South Wales was projected to go into recession had it not been for the renewables investment that was being made into that state. The energy roadmap, of which I was the architect and which we legislated with multipartisan support, has kept the New South Wales economy afloat, and that’s something we should all be proud of, and we should be working to grow our economy and grow our prosperity, not standing in the way of doing so, as you’re trying to do, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The Crisafulli LNP government is doing the opposite.
Mr Kean: Well, I’m talking about the renewables roadmap in New South Wales, which has kept the state out of recession. It’s not me as a Liberal saying that; it’s the new treasurer saying it, based on a Liberal policy. It’s something I’m very proud of, and we should be continuing to campaign on building a stronger, more prosperous nation. And let me tell you how to do that: it’s by building more renewables, not less.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator Ayres: Senator, that was a sort of far-right Beat Poet! I’m not quite sure what you were doing over the dinner break. But it’s utter rubbish.
Senator ROBERTS: Dishonest, incompetent, lazy, fearful—
https://img.youtube.com/vi/X6kJ-bsWCcY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-02 10:06:342026-07-02 10:06:40Net Zero is Crippling Australia
