Posts

Fighting Back Against Climate Hysteria

Energy is about more than fuel; it is about freedom!

America is leading the fight against Climate Change fraud.

That’s fitting, considering a collection of charlatans, politicians, and paid-off scientific bodies birthed doomsday climate propaganda was birthed within American shores.

July brought good news!

The Climate Working Group in the US Department of Energy produced the document A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.

Since Donald Trump took office, the US Department of Energy has been waging war against all things dodgy and ‘green’.

Critically, his Administration has cut off billions of dollars incentivising Australian companies to pursue Net Zero instead of critical energy infrastructure.

Americans are now talking about ‘unleashing US energy’, creating a ‘nuclear renaissance’, and – yes – drill, baby, drill!

The Climate Working Group responsible for the paper carry familiar names, many of them reformed from their days in the climate movement: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.

The title of the Secretary of Energy’s forward sets the scene: Energy, integrity, and the power of human potential.

He goes on to say:

‘The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told – relentlessly – that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat. Hydrocarbon-based fuels, the argument goes, must be rapidly abandoned or else we risk planetary ruin.
That view demands scrutiny.’

The US Department of Energy is on a quest to prove (or disprove) one of the most costly ‘assumptions’ in modern politics.

The Secretary adds that ‘media coverage often distorts the science’ and ‘many people walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete’.

He picked a competent collection of scientists and says ‘readers may be surprised’ by the report’s conclusions – some of which I’ll share here.

‘That’s a sign of how far the public conversation has drifted from the science itself’.’

I have pulled out some of key findings from this report that I believe are most interesting.

These comments appear under their chapter headings so that you might further explore them in the report.

Here is what the Department of Energy had to say.

Part 1: Direct Human Influence on Ecosystems and the Climate

Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and fails to meet the criteria set out in the Clean Air Act (1970).

It has no toxicological effects in humans, is naturally occurring in the atmosphere, and key for life. In this way, it is remarkably similar to water vapour. The report confirms that a rise in CO2 promotes plant growth and while it may play a role as a greenhouse gas, how the planet responds to this is a ‘complex question’. ‘Brimstone and fire’ are not among the options…

Part 2: Direct Impacts of CO2 on the Environment

CO2 as a Contributor to Global Greening

The report confirms that CO2 enhances plant growth and that a ‘global greening’ is well-established on all continents. They refer to this as the Leaf Area Index which is measured with satellites. Greening has naturally mitigated any warming. Using modern fertilisers has helped with this process.

When the basic structure of modern plants evolved, there was an enormous amount of CO2 in the air. In one of the many studies done concerning raised CO2 levels, plants respond positively – becoming more water efficient. This changes the calculations for crop production, which should benefit.

This is important, because it challenges the view that rising CO2 will ‘exacerbate water scarcity’. Odds are, it will have the reverse effect.

The IPCC admits to this in its Special Reports, yet rarely discusses it.

Acidic Oceans?

While oceans absorbing CO2 become less alkaline, this trend is well-within historical norms and most ocean life evolved when the oceans were more acidic than today. The report points out that ‘ocean acidification’ is a misnomer and should be called ‘ocean neutralisation’ instead.

Life evolved when oceans were mildly acidic (pH 6.5-7.0). Today they are around pH 8.04.

This is where much of the discussion regarding The Great Barrier Reef comes in – a topic which ‘climate experts’ like to view as the canary in their apocalyptic coal mine.

The report references Peter Ridd’s fine work which includes a body of evidence that strongly suggests the media frenzy regarding a temporary reduction in coral was due to tropical cyclones, not ocean temperature. The bounce-back in growth would seem to confirm this assumption.

It is within the topic of The Great Barrier Reef that the American report calls out political bias and publication bias in the published research. This is alarming. It speaks to the untrustworthiness of government funding and scientific bodies that may be feeding off the ‘climate change’ fear mongering.

Part 3. Human Influences on the Climate

Components of radiative forcing and their history

There is a long discussion here about how the United Nations’ climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, downplays the natural effects of solar radiation – long known to be the primary driver of climate. The UN IPCC’s disproportionate and incorrect thinking has then been imported into government and industry through UN-approved ideology and goals.

In other words, the IPCC’s many serious mistakes and assumptions have filtered through into the ‘global consensus’. This is very concerning.

While the report makes clear that humans, like all animals, are capable of changing the composition of the atmosphere, it does not follow that a catastrophe looms.

Something we very rarely hear our Minister for Climate Change and Energy discuss, for example, is the impact of aerosols which have a cooling effect.

‘Although the IPCC does not claim its emission scenarios are forecasts, they are often treated as such.’

The report notes something that the IPCC’s doomsday predictions often omit, and that is the changing nature of the Carbon Cycle.

Scientists already know that there is a ‘greening effect’ happening across the planet, and if this continues, the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere will naturally accelerate thanks to hungry plants. This impacts the forecast for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and yet it is almost always ignored.

Part 4. Climate Sensitivity to CO2 Forcing

Essentially, this is where the report attempts to ask the question our government should have tabled at the start: ‘How will the climate respond to CO2?’

Destroying capitalism, democracy, and the modern age doesn’t seem to be a recommendation of the report…

As the US Department of Energy X account wrote, ‘Energy is about more than fuel; it is about FREEDOM!’

Simply put, are the climate models that are being used to reshape our civilisation, actually any good?

It is an extremely long, detailed, and technical chapter and the short answer is: ‘No.’

Part 5. Discrepancies between Models and Instrumental Observations

This is a continuation of the above topic, with specific examples on where climate models have shown distinct ‘warming’ biases.

We’ve been told to ‘trust the science’ but what we’re actually being asked to ‘trust’ is an environment of failed modelling from unvalidated and erroneous computer models.

The detail of this is interesting, and the ramifications are frightening.

We are being led to believe that successive governments scuttled Australia’s future based upon climate models that have consistently proven themselves to be wrong. One would hope that the energy grid was torn up for better reasons…

‘Problems with climate models are not just in their disagreement over the future, but also in their ability to replicate the recent past.’

Part 6. Extreme Weather

This is the topic that keeps the Bureau of Meteorology alive. Every storm must be extreme – every weather event must be ‘unprecedented’. A fine perfect day such as today isn’t particularly useful for frightening voters into supporting ‘climate change’ and energy legislation. If Australians doubt the ‘global boiling’ narrative, they may start asking questions of the Treasurer such as, ‘Why am I giving you so much of my money for ugly and environmentally damaging wind turbines?’

The chapter’s beginning states that it is not whether extremes in weather conditions occur (as they always have done), it is if these are becoming more frequent and if the cause is human activity.

This last part matters, because if humans are not to blame, the solution is not to pour trillions of dollars into Net Zero.

The report did not find an increase in hurricanes or heat waves nor did it see a rise in hottest day records. Even severe tornados were decreasing. Their weather studies agree with Australia where the 1880-1945 period was the roughest.

Indeed what the report reveals is that the bias of our short-lived memory (dating back roughly 50 years) makes human beings a poor judge of climate trends which often operate on much larger time scales.

Part 7. Changes in Sea Level

This is the UN’s favourite topic. Who hasn’t seen the photoshoot of the UN Secretary-General wading out into surf in his expensive suit to ‘prove’ rising sea levels and thereby imply we need to free up hundreds of billions in ‘aid’ relief from countries such as Australia and given to Pacific Islands?

If the sea levels aren’t rising, there are a lot of taxpayers who might start demanding a refund.

There are two major problems with detecting small sea level rises.

The first is its dependency on geological activity on landmasses that may be themselves sinking or rising.

The second is the enormous historical variability of sea levels (up to 400 metres) which follow glacial periods. This modern era is an inter-glacial period in which we have been experiencing a rise in sea levels entirely unrelated to human activity.

20,000 years ago, the sea level was 130 metres lower. That’s how ancient people were able to walk across land bridges and why there are human civilisations across the world now drowned under water. Even between 14,000 years ago and 6,500 we have experienced a 110 metre sea level rise.

Was this ‘catastrophic climate change!’ or a natural cycle to which humans adapted?

What could we have done to stop this? Nothing. We didn’t cause it.

The glaciers which caused this enormous change in sea level started before the Industrial Age and continue to this day. So, when it is claimed that sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1900 – it is perfectly valid to assign that cause as natural.

This is the conclusion the report reaches – that there is no evidence that human activity has influenced sea levels.

Theoretically, to reverse sea level rise, we would almost have to manufacture an Ice Age. No one wants that. Certainly not the animals and plants.

Part 8. Uncertainties in Climate Change Attribution

This chapter critiques the way scientific reports assign the cause of data to anthropogenic activity instead of natural causes. (Anthropogenic is an adjective describing something that is related to or due to human activity.)

‘There are ongoing scientific debates around attribution methods, especially those for attributing extreme weather events to “climate change”. The IPCC has long cautioned that methods to establish causality in climate science are inherently uncertain and ultimately depend on expert judgement.’

In other words, most of the time you read an article or a report that says, ‘This flood is because of climate change!’ there is no proof, only an ideologically skewed assumption, possibly a lie.

The more incorrect the attributions in a report, the more difficult it becomes to untangle ordinary weather events from genuine outliers.

For those who are interested in how the IPCC decides if a weather event is due to ‘climate change’, they use several methods:

  • Optimal Fingerprinting (based around computer models)
  • Time Series Analysis (to pick outliers from data)
  • Process-Based Attribution (observations, computer models, and theoretical understanding)
  • Extreme Event Attribution (a guess about the likelihood of human impact)

The report is highly critical of the IPCC’s methods, especially given their reliance on computer modelling which is known to be mostly wrong.

Part 9. Climate Change and US Agriculture

This part of the report is geared toward the US market although the lesson for Australia is simple: while climate variance may slightly impact some crops, most crops are expected to increase their yields or demonstrate no change. Positive impacts are seen on corn, wheat, and soybeans.

If the world is to starve, it won’t be due to ‘climate change’. Instead, it will be due to the UN’s interference in fertiliser use which saw Sri Lanka collapse into anarchy almost overnight and their agricultural sector wiped off the map.

It is very likely that efforts to combat the non-existent threat of climate to agriculture will itself create a threat.

In Australia’s case, this can be seen in the tearing up of farmland for wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines.

Part 10. Managing Risks of Extreme Weather

It’s not the severity of weather events, it’s their proximity to increased populations… With more people in the world living in reclaimed areas and on artificially constructed land (for example China and its mega projects), it is inevitable that videos of floods running through cities will occur at a time when before these places were uninhabited.

Despite this, the report finds that technological advancements, particularly to building codes, has resulted in a significant decrease in mortality and property loss relative to storm severity.

Part 11. Climate Change, the Economy, and the Social Cost of Carbon

This is the most-quoted portion of the report because it handles the question facing Western economies: What is this whole carbon discussion going to cost the average taxpayer? Indeed, what will it cost our civilisation? Of what advancements will it rob us? Will it hold back our progress? Are we creating new classes of control with climate measures?

‘Economists have long considered climate a relatively unimportant factor in economic growth, a view echoed by the (UN) IPCC itself … mainstream climate economics has recognised that CO2-induced warming might have some negative economic effects, but they are too small to justify aggressive abatement policy and that trying to “stop” or cap global warming even at levels well above the Paris target would be worse than doing nothing.’

Of chief concern in this report is the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ – a new concept. The report says, ‘Estimates are highly uncertain due to unknowns in future economic growth, socioeconomic pathways, discount rates, climate damages, and system responses.’

Key takeaways that defy conventional government narratives on climate include the observation that human societies do well in warm climates and poorly in cold climates. ‘This implies that warming will tend to be harmful in hot regions but beneficial in cool ones.’ Even the UN IPCC noted that climate was a minor consideration compared to population, technology, and other things such as conflict.

So far, any historical ‘warming’, if real, has led to the greatest period of human flourishing. It has not been a ‘catastrophe’.

Indeed, Earth’s past far warmer periods are scientifically classified as ‘climate optimums’ because during such warmer periods humans thrived, civilisations thrived, and the natural environment thrived.

‘Even as the globe warmed and the population quintupled, humanity has prospered as never before. For example, global average lifespan went from thirty-two years to seventy-two years, economic activity per capita grew by a factor of seven, and the death rate from extreme weather events plummeted by a factor of fifty.’

The takeaway?

‘Most climate economists thus recommend humanity to just wait-and-see.’

Following this is a list of serious reports into historic human economies which, when examined, display significant benefits to warmer climate on every metric.

What’s startling is the way in which economists measure the Social Cost of Carbon and, as with computer modelling of temperature, it is riddled with assumptions, bias, and dodgy data.

Here’s a sample:

‘Economists use IAMs to compute the SCC. Two of the best-known are the Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution (“FUND”, Tol 1997) and Nordhaus’ DICE. EPA (2023) introduced new ones for its recent work. IAMs embed a “damage function” or set of functions relating ambient temperature to local economic conditions. The assumptions embedded in the damage function will largely determine the resulting SCC. IAMs also assume a long-term discount rate or, as in DICE, compute the optimal internal discount rate as part of the solution. One approach to developing a damage function is to begin with estimates of the costs (or benefits) of warming in specific sectors in countries around the world and aggregate up to a global amount.’

As I am sure you have worked out, and as the report goes on to state, there is no escaping the fact that most of this is guesswork.

‘Suppose we assume a relatively high Social Cost of Carbon of, say, $75 per tonne. Deflated by a MCPF value of 1.5 that would result in a carbon tax of $50 per tonne.’

It’s a nonsense accounting system for which we’re paying a fortune – in part to the UN to fund its operating budget.

In conclusion:

The closing chapters of the report address the reality about the oft-repeated mantra of ‘taking action on climate change’.

‘Even drastic local actions will have negligible local effects, and only with a long delay. The practice of referring to unilateral US reductions as “combatting climate change” or “taking action on climate” on the assumption we can stop climate change therefore reflects a profound misunderstanding of the scale of the issue.’

In particular, it calls out the ‘war against cars’ (one of Chris Bowen’s favourite topics) saying, ‘…emissions from US vehicles cannot be expected to remediate alleged climate dangers to the US public on any measurable scale.’ If that is the case for the US, imagine what that means for the tiny population of Australian car owners.

The report concludes with a call for sanity, reality, and a serious approach toward the energy system that encourages and ensures future prosperity.

Under the Biden and Obama regimes, energy and climate experts were forced to remain silent. Under Donald Trump, these same experts have finally been able to speak freely and lay the reality of energy generation on the table for the world to see.

The Australian Uniparty’s ambivalence to this report, to the Executive Energy Orders, and to the constant messaging of the US Energy Department indicate that our government remains in a state of denial. Being willfully dishonest.

Stealing from taxpayers and transferring wealth from we, the people to parasitic billionaires and multinational corporations sucking on subsidies.

While dishonest governments cede sovereignty to the UN, World Economic Forum, and supra-natural agencies including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Governments fraudulently use concocted, unfounded climate alarm to cripple children’s mental health and impose unwarranted claims on every aspect of people’s lives from energy to food, to property, to money … to lifestyle. And to curtail basic freedom.

Fighting back against climate hysteria by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Energy is about more than fuel; it is about freedom!

Read on Substack
/3 Comments/by

Australians Pay the Price for Net-Zero

,

The rising cost of living in Australia is due to Net-Zero “rorts” and now they’re adding another one – the Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS).

The Labor government is using taxpayer money to fund solar and wind in a way that lacks transparency and accountability. For example: Energy Minister Chris Bowen awarded substantial taxpayer money to a wind turbine project fund whose chair is former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Bowen did so just days after the fund purchased the project. How much did he give? Possibly billions of dollars.

This process allows for unethical profiteering and lacks proper oversight. Decisions are made behind closed doors with no public access to the bidding or selection criteria. The secrecy surrounding the CIS could enable “favouritism” and corruption without any way to verify or challenge decisions. Tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money may be getting handed out in long-term contracts without public knowledge or scrutiny. We just don’t know!

CSIRO’s GenCost recent report on electricity prices is biased and misleading, with even CSIRO now admitting coal is cheaper than wind and solar. Despite this admission, the report relies on a secret model and questionable assumptions that appear designed to discredit coal, raising concerns about transparency and integrity.

Government agencies pushing net zero policies are misleading Australians. Ditch the Net-Zero nonsense and put Australians first.

Transcript

Australian lives are getting more expensive every day because of net zero rorts. Power bills keep going up and the national debt keeps going up, because Australian taxpayers, renters, pensioners, small businesses and anyone who turns on a light are paying for rorts. 

I use this opportunity to detail just one of these rorts—it’s not illegal, yet it’s completely unethical—occurring under the Capacity Investment Scheme. The Capacity Investment Scheme is a wind and solar slush fund that Minister Chris Bowen personally administers. I’m going to quote energy expert Aidan Morrison extensively, and we thank him for all of his contributions to the energy debate in this country. He said: 

This is the story of how a fund chaired by former Labor PM Julia Gillard acquired a wind farm project just six days before Labor Energy Minister Chris Bowen underwrote its future revenues with taxpayer money. 

Today we’ve learned Julia’s fund is trying to flip it. For a profit. 

HMC Capital’s ‘Energy Transition Fund’ rushed to acquire the Neoen Victoria portfolio. They hadn’t even raised any money in their fund. They closed with almost a billion dollars worth of borrowed money and IOU’s. 

Less than a week later, Chris Bowen announced Kentbruck Wind Farm to be successful in the first round of the Capacity Investment Scheme. My rough calculations suggest they will receive something like a billion dollars from taxpayers (and maybe much more) over 15 years. 

Sweet deal. A billion dollars of fancy financial monopoly money one week. A billion dollars of promised taxpayer dollars the next. 

… … … 

Unlike the UK who publish a ‘going rate’ for technology subsidies, our renewables— 

unreliables— 

are subsidised through a secret tender process— 

under the Capacity Investment Scheme. He went on to say: 

Every project gets to ask for whatever revenue they want to proceed. @AEMO_Energy— 

that’s the Australian Energy Market Operator— 

facilitates a secret beauty pageant, where they award points for things like indigenous participation or community engagement, alongside financial value. 

And Chris Bowen makes the final call. 

The bids remain secret. There’s no cap to the pay-outs. Since AEMO is a private company, there is no scope for an FOI— 

freedom of information— 

request, and AEMO aren’t not subject to parliamentary oversight through Senate Estimates. 

So— 

based on the public information— 

no-one can ever prove an allegation that Bowen has bestowed special favour on a friend’s project if that was what he did. But equally, he can never prove that he selected strictly according to merit. We are just expected to trust the black-box of Bowen’s subsidies. 

Mr Morrison continues in a reply to his post: 

Originally it always appeared to me that @DCCEEW— 

the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water— 

would administer the scheme. 

But Bowen is determined they don’t administer it. In fact, going so far as to change the National Electricity Law to make it possible for AEMO Services to do it, and making an interim request to AEMO. 

… … … 

He could have just used the department, but that would make the process more transparent and accountable to parliament. He’s basically cutting corners to cut out any chance of oversight. 

In Mr Morrison’s original post, he says: 

Every dollar of profit in this industry— 

the so-called solar and wind industry— 

is really a cheque signed by a politician, with Chris Bowen signing all the biggest cheques, worth untold billions, in the next three years.  

It’s all legal. It’s all official. And it’s absolutely obscene. 

The most concerning part of the Capacity Investment Scheme is that we have no idea how big it is. Right now, tens of billions of dollars may be getting handed out in lock-in contracts lasting for the next 15 years. Labor created the Capacity Investment Scheme in 2023. It’s since proven extremely popular with solar and wind developers. I wonder why. Now, Minister Bowen wants to expand the program 15 per cent to 40 gigawatts. How many billions of dollars will all this cost taxpayers? We will likely never know. How much are overseas foreign companies ripping out of Australian taxpayers’ pockets under the Capacity Investment Scheme? We will never know. With this level of secrecy, rorts are almost guaranteed—and for what? 

The biased, discredited CSIRO GenCost report on the cost of electricity was released just this week. You only have to skim the Centre for Independent Studies’ energy publications to understand how, yet even CSIRO had to admit that the lower estimate for coal-fired power is cheaper than wind and solar. Now they admit it, after their fraudulent GenCost report. That’s despite a secret model the CSIRO refuses to release to the public and a number of assumptions purpose-designed to make coal look worse than reality—fraud. Fundamentally, Australians have been lied to repeatedly by government agencies. Ditch the economic nonsense from net zero. Ditch the net zero nonsense, in fact. End the corruption. Put Australians first. 

/1 Comment/by

HECS Relief Should Mean Real Change, Not Just Headlines

,

One Nation voted against the Government’s HECS bill because it’s a con job that’s going to leave students, graduates and taxpayers worse off in the long run.

The government has outright lied. The effective debt cut is just 2% taking into account previous indexation – indexation that was made worse because the government caused the inflation crisis. This Bill does nothing to fix the broken University sector.

Here’s what One Nation would do for students:

  • Publish graduate salary data: Universities should disclose average graduate salaries at one, five, and ten years post-graduation to help students make informed decisions about their degrees.
  • Cut fees for courses: One Nation proposes reducing fees for subjects that rely heavily on outdated prerecorded lectures and frequent group assignments.
  • Enforce English standards: Universities should strictly enforce English proficiency for international students to ensure fair group work and protect domestic students’ academic outcomes.
  • Fix HECS indexation timing: The government should apply withheld HECS repayments before indexation to prevent students from being unfairly charged interest on money already paid.
  • Increase university accountability: Universities must be held responsible for the quality and outcomes of the degrees they offer, especially when public funds are involved.

All of these things must be fixed or HECS debts will be racked up again and graduates will be back to where they started.

Transcript

The Albanese Labor government is selling students a con job. This isn’t a HECS refund; it’s taking students back to where they started, before the government caused the inflation crisis. I will say that again: this isn’t a HECS refund; it’s just taking students backwards to where they started before the government caused the inflation crisis. 

On the original HECS indexation rates, HECS debts would have been indexed 23 per cent since COVID, or 2020. Accounting for recent cuts, this figure is still 18 per cent. While Labor keeps posting TikToks saying, ‘You’re getting a 20 per cent cut,’ the reality is you’re only getting a two per cent discount on the 2020 balance, at best. The Albanese government’s student debt reduction is fiscally irresponsible, lazy and vote-buying and does nothing to address underlying issues in university education. 

These changes are reported to cost $16 billion in forgiven debt, which adds to roughly $3 billion in forgiveness from changes to indexation rates in relation to high COVID inflation that came into effect in December 2024. This $19 billion goes onto the national debt, on which all taxpayers pay a far higher amount of interest than HECS debt indexation. Those who’ve got university degrees and those who haven’t all pay. Taxpayers, who are more likely than not going to be people with degrees, are going to have to pay back that national debt and then some. It’s just shifting the debt from your HECS account to the tax you’ll have to pay in the future.  

When it comes to HECS debt, many young people have signed up to take on a huge amount of debt, often for degrees that failed to deliver on the university’s promise of a high-paying job in the future. That is what universities promise. Standards of tertiary education have continued to deteriorate. Indoctrination has become more important than education, and promised job prospects have failed to materialise for many students. 

Meanwhile, the universities and their extravagantly paid vice-chancellors are laughing all the way to the bank. In 2020, the heads of 16 of Australia’s 41 universities each earned more than $1 million a year, more than the head of the world’s best university, Oxford. A number of Australia’s universities generate more than $2 billion a year in revenue. The universities face no accountability for the quality of teaching they pump out. Under the HECS system, the government pays the university upfront, while the student pays the debt back to government for rest of their life. 

Tertiary education has turned into an extremely lucrative government guaranteed cash cow, with students holding the debt for degrees that fail to deliver quality teaching or the promise of a good, stable job. Many courses are being delivered with prerecorded lectures that are many years old. Delivering degrees is getting cheaper, so course fees should be getting cheaper too, but they’re not. One Nation would cut the fees for subjects that use repeated prerecorded lectures and large numbers of group assignments. 

The increasing use of group assignments so that universities can pay for fewer assessors per course is another real issue. In these group assignments, students are frequently grouped with foreign international students, on whom universities rely for even more income. English standards are not being strictly enforced, so Australian students find themselves having to do the entire group’s work or watch their grades suffer as a group result. One Nation will strictly enforce English standards for international students so that universities aren’t sacrificing Australian educations to increase profit from international students, to the detriment of Australian students. Our universities should be focused on delivering a good education for Australian students first. That’s the first priority. 

There are still big problems with the way HECS debts are indexed, though. Employers withhold extra tax from HECS debtors on every pay under the pay as you go withholding scheme. While extra tax has been withheld every pay cycle, the extra tax paid is only deducted from the study debts once the person’s tax return has been lodged. The earliest someone can do this is 1 July. HECS debts, however, are indexed earlier, on the larger balance, before the payment on 1 June. This means that, despite the student paying extra tax for their HECS all through the year and the government holding that money for HECS at the time, the indexation rate is applied to the larger balance, without that withheld tax being applied, which would reduce the interest added on top of at indexation. This is grossly and inherently unfair and deceptive. If the government is holding someone’s money for HECS repayments, that money should be applied to the balance before indexation is applied. To do otherwise, which is what the government’s doing, is theft. Nothing in this bill fixes this unfair situation. We’ve raised this issue of theft before, and still the government continues to steal from students. 

Finally, One Nation believes universities should be made accountable for the degrees they deliver. One Nation believes universities should publish the average salaries of graduates from their degrees one year, five years and 10 years after graduation so that future students know what they’re signing up for. Is doing the degree going to be worth the debt? This could be done per university and per individual course, anonymously and in aggregate, giving everyone clear data on what future job prospects they can expect, without divulging identities. This is possible already. Simply link the unique student identifier and their course with the student’s tax file number and their salary reported to the Taxation Office. 

In summary, the government’s HECS bill is a con job. It only returns balances back to where they were right before COVID arrived. That’s all. The debt is just transferred to the national debt, which taxpayers, like uni graduates, will have to eventually pay down with higher taxes. This bill does nothing to make sure Australian university students get an education that’s actually worthwhile. It does nothing. One Nation will vote against this bill because we do not want a con job reduction. We want a better life for university students, and this bill does not do that. We want a life that doesn’t mean a forever debt for a degree that never lives up to its promises. One Nation wants students to get education and value. 

/1 Comment/by

One Nation’s Vision for Australia

As we near election day, I want to explain One Nation’s vision for Australia and how we believe the country should be run for your benefit.

Get your digital How To Vote Card at vote.onenation.org.au

/1 Comment/by

Setting the Record Straight with the BOM

,

During the recent Senate Estimates Session with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), I tabled a graph from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to challenge some of the exaggerated claims we’ve been hearing about extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, and fires.

For years the BOM has always referred me to the IPCC’s work as the authoritative source on climate science. I specifically pointed to the IPCC’s Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, where they provide an analysis of a wide range of weather events. What struck me—and I think it should strike everyone—is that for nearly every major type of extreme weather event, the IPCC finds that there has been no detectable change in frequency or severity over time. This includes river floods, fire weather, tropical cyclones, and coastal floods. The data doesn’t support the claims that these events are becoming more frequent or intense because of “climate change”.

This is important because politicians and the media have often linked these events to human-induced climate change. They claim that floods, fires, and cyclones are somehow the direct result of our carbon dioxide production.

Yet if the IPCC itself, the body these same politicians refer to, says there’s no significant change in these events, why aren’t we calling out this misinformation? Why isn’t BOM calling out this misinformation?

For example, tropical cyclones – the IPCC indicates no change in their frequency or severity, not just for today, but looking ahead through to 2100—even under the worst-case climate scenario. And yet, we continue to hear false claims that “human-induced climate change” is worsening cyclone events. This isn’t true. These events have been part of the natural weather cycle for millennia.

The BOM Director, Dr Johnson’s response acknowledged that the science on cyclones is evolving and confirmed that while there may be fewer cyclones in the future, the ones that do occur may be more intense. Yet again, these claims are based on unsubstantiated projections—not hard data. They’re misinformation!

What’s more, looking at the IPCC’s tables, which break down the evidence of (naturally) varying weather patterns, for nearly every phenomenon—whether it’s precipitation, floods, fire weather, or tropical cyclones—the data simply doesn’t support the idea of dramatic increases due to “human-induced” climate change.

So, why are we still seeing politicians and the media push these claims?

This is not saying to ignore the importance of understanding climate variability, it’s about dealing with the facts – the measured data. The science must guide us, not the political agenda. And if the observed, measured scientific data says these extreme weather events aren’t changing as some claim, we need to stand firm against the misinformation.

Let’s be clear: the data doesn’t support the alarmist rhetoric. We should be calling out the misinformation and ensuring that decisions, policies, regulations and public opinion are based on what the science actually tells us—not on what some want us to believe.

I will continue to hold taxpayer funded agencies and politicians accountable. The truth matters, because, as always, it’s we the people who pay.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table this graph from a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as the basis for some brief questions. I don’t have too many questions today. I’ll start with a little preamble just to set the scene for this. When you get the graph, you’ll see it. I refer to misinformation being put out that cyclones and floods are getting more frequent and severe. Over many years in this committee the BOM has referred me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This might surprise you, but I’m not actually going to argue with you on the merits of the IPCC today, even though they’re a bunch of net zero pushers and are politically driven. I’m going to quote them, because you claim they’re the authority. I’ll take you to Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, table 12.12, by working group 1, on the science of climate, at page 1856. In that table is just about every type of measurable weather event. Some call it extreme weather events.

The blank or white boxes indicate there is no detectable change in frequency or severity of the weather event. I’ll go down the list of what the IPCC itself says—not me. River flood—no change is detected in current period. No change is expected to be detected under the worst case climate scenario by 2050 or even by 2100. Fire weather—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Tropical cyclone—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Coastal flood—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Pluvial—there’s a minor risk in the most extreme, worst-case scenario. If your net zero gods at the IPCC say the data shows weather events are not getting worse because of climate change, why isn’t the Bureau of Meteorology calling out the misinformation peddled by politicians when they state that this flood is because of climate change, this fire is because of climate change or this cyclone is because of climate change? Everyone knows that’s not true. These events have been happening for millennia. Even the scientists in the United Nations that you reference say it’s not so.  

Dr Johnson: I might make a couple of preliminary remarks and then ask Dr Braganza, who is online, to join in. I haven’t had a chance to study the page that you’ve just supplied me. I think many times I’ve referred you to the State of the climate report that the bureau produces with the CSIRO every two years, which contains the latest up-to-date information on climate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve read each of them.  

Dr Johnson: I know you read it, and I’d encourage you to refer to it again. Across a range of phenomena we know there are very strong signals already from climate change, in particular around temperature and in particular around drying in the southern, south-east and south-west parts of Australia. Those signals are very strong. The level of confidence in them is very high. Some of the signals for other phenomena, including tropical cyclones, are still evolving and maturing. We have seen an increase in the incidence of high-intensity rainfall. We know as a matter of fact that, as the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture—probably up to 10 or 11 per cent more—than it would otherwise have, and that we’ve seen an increase in high-intensity events. We’ve certainly been on record saying that we expect in Australia it’s likely that there will be a lower number and frequency of cyclones, but they’re likely to be more severe. We’ve been on the record for that for ages. We’ve also been on the record on many occasions—  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain the basis for that? The UN says it’s not—  

Dr Johnson: I’ll come to that. Dr Braganza might want to say something about this in a minute. We’ve also been on the record that, particularly when it comes to individual cyclones and individual rainfall events, it’s very difficult to attribute single events to climate change. We’re talking about longer term global trends here. That’s been our position for some time, and it remains so unless new evidence is entered into existence that would cause us to change our mind. I can only be accountable for the science we do. I can’t be accountable for how those in the public domain choose to talk about it. We certainly provide advice, as we’ve done to this committee many times and in many other fora, about what we’re observing and what our science is telling us is likely to come down the pipeline, and also where we have higher or lower confidence about what is or isn’t coming. They would be my general comments.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you correctly—just before we go to Dr Braganza—that cyclones are not becoming more intense?  

Dr Johnson: No, I didn’t say that. I said that in our outlooks we think there’s a reasonable likelihood—Dr Braganza will be able to quantify this in more specific detail—that the Australian region is likely to see fewer cyclones, but there’s a likelihood that they’ll be more intense rather than less intense. Dr Braganza is our lead in this space and I’d rather he answer these detailed questions that you might have.  

Dr Braganza: For tropical cyclones, the bureau, as Dr Johnson has pointed out, has consistently communicated that we have potentially seen a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones in our region, in particular in the east. We haven’t communicated that we’ve seen any significant change in intensity. Categorising changes in tropical cyclones is difficult. We’re limited to the satellite era. Prior to the satellite era, categorising tropical cyclones for severity and even whether or not they’re a tropical cyclone in the mid latitudes becomes difficult. There are data limitations in trends in tropical cyclones. The bureau has been entirely consistent in how it’s described those and entirely transparent in the data limitations. We have not communicated that we have seen large changes in tropical cyclones that are due to climate change. We don’t communicate around these individual weather events that they were caused by climate change. For tropical cyclones there are multiple aspects to the weather event. When we talk about intensity, we’re often talking about wind speed. Wind speed is just one aspect of a tropical cyclone. There’s also rainfall intensity and there’s storm surge intensity. Due to sea level rise and increased warmth in the atmosphere, we expect increased heavy rainfall and increased storm surge activity from all such events, not just tropical cyclones. There are also events such as east coast lows and others. Observational data is what it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to comment on this, because you don’t have the table in front of you, but I’ll just go through chapter 12 and table 12.12, emergence of climate impact drivers in different time periods. That’s with regard to the future. The white colour indicates that there’s no confidence in what they’re saying or what they’re projecting. In terms of already emerged and ‘worst case scenario’ in the future by 2050 and by 2100: mean precipitation, no confidence in the data. No trend has emerged. River flood is the same. Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood is the same. Landslide is the same. Aridity is the same. Hydrological drought is the same. Agricultural and ecological drought is the same. Fire weather is the same. Tropical cyclones is the same. Coastal flood is the same. These are often taken advantage of by politicians and the news media; there’s no evidence for their comments attributing them to climate change caused by humans.  

Dr Braganza: I’ll have to take that on notice since I don’t have the material in front of me. Some of the phenomena you’ve called out again in terms of establishing observed trends is limited by sample size. You’re talking not about weather events necessarily; you’re talking about impact events such as the size of a flood following heavy rainfall. There are possibly data limitations involved, but I would have to see exactly the material that you’re referencing. 

/4 Comments/by

Tax Reform Urgently Needed to Create a Fairer System for All Australians

,

I believe we need to have comprehensive tax reform. Australia’s current tax system is destructive. Individuals on average incomes pay a staggering 68% of their income in various taxes, meaning they work nearly half the year just to cover government obligations. With median incomes at $67,000, many Australians are struggling.

We need reform to address the regressive nature of the tax system, which hits the less fortunate the hardest. Let’s strive for a fairer, simpler tax future for all Australians.

Transcript

In my first speech, in 2016, and many times since, I’ve called for comprehensive tax reform. The tax system in Australia as it exists is our country’s most destructive system, and not just exorbitant tax rates. I’ll give you some figures from the late 1990s and early 2000s. Someone on the average income paid 68 per cent of their income to government in the form of rates levies, fees, charges, special charges and special levies—68 per cent. That means someone’s working from Monday to mid-morning Thursday to pay the government. 

Since then, it’s got much more complex and more absurd, and some of the data I’ll give you is more recent. Some of the figures are indicative, not definitive. The ABS average income figure is $100,000. The median income figure is $67,000. Life is tough for people on the median. In 2015 Joe Hockey said that a typical person in Australia pays 50 per cent in tax—works from January to June to pay the government, and then gets to keep from July to December. Basically, as I said, people are working at least half the year—probably 68 per cent of the year—for government. 

Then we think about the tax. Tax on a house, according to a News Corporation article a few years ago and according to recent figures, is 45 to 50 per cent of the house price, The effective tax rate is 80 to 100 per cent. International accountant and auditor Derek Smith in Queensland says that 50 per cent of the price of bread is tax, which is an effective tax rate of 100 per cent. Petrol excise and tax varies. At 70 per cent, the effective tax rate is 230 per cent. So, a worker on the average income on payday gives 21 per cent of his or her gross income to the government. With what’s left—that’s 79 per cent—she the next day wakes up in her house and pays 80 to 100 per cent to have that house and makes some sandwiches because food is too expensive to purchase wherever she works. So, that’s a tax of 100 per cent. Then she fills up at the petrol station on her way to work, and that costs her 230 per cent tax. 

Then we have GST. GST can be levied on bills, including stamp duty, so we’ve got a tax on a tax. So, there are three aspects. First, there’s the total tax paid. Second, how is it levied? And third, is it enforced fairly? Ultimately, the people pay a tax in the form of higher prices. So, it doesn’t matter if a company is being taxed or if another entity is being taxed; they pass it on to the customers. 

Cost of living, inflation, overregulation and many other factors make sure that today’s system of government impositions—government cost recovery—is highly regressive. Look at the carbon dioxide tax and offsets—a UN tax, driven by the UN, introduced by the Liberals-Nationals in 2015 under Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull and now ramped up under this government with Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. We’ve got a highly regressive imposition of taxation and other charges by the government. The Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that the median income is $67,000. People on that median income are doing it extremely tough because of government and the mishmash that’s evolved in the taxation system. 

That takes care of terms of reference (a) and (b) in Senator Rennick’s motion. I agree with them; in fact, I agree with his whole motion, and I thank him for his motion. I’ve raised the need for comprehensive tax reform many times, so I support this motion. 

Then we see the core, one of the bedrocks of our federal system and Constitution—competitive federalism. That is being converted under the current tax system to competitive welfarism, destroying productivity in this country. The way competitive federalism should work is it promotes competition between the states—not cut-throat competition, just competition for efficiency. As I said yesterday, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, as Premier of Queensland, abolished death duties in Queensland and people moved to Queensland to retire, which developed the Gold Coast. The other states then saw their people were leaving, so they abolished death duties too. Now we’ve got Labor—and the Greens, I think—wanting to put in place a central death duty as a state duty—centrally imposed, no competition, no accountability. When you have a marketplace in governance because the state can’t operate according to their needs and the needs best suited to their constituents, then you have competitive federalism, a marketplace in governance, and that is priceless. One of the reasons we’ve got such low accountability in state and federal parliament is it’s too easy for the states to blame the feds and the feds to blame the states, as I said yesterday. The GST undoes competitive federalism and replaces it with competitive welfarism. It’s a reward for states like Tasmania and South Australia to be inefficient and not use their resources and, instead, bludge off of Western Australia. 

I mentioned yesterday that systems drive behaviour and behaviour shapes attitude, and the combination of behaviour and attitudes along with values and leadership and symbols determine the culture, which is the most important determinant of productivity, security and accountability. Energy prices, as I said, are a huge regressive tax on the poor. Massive record immigration is a huge regressive tax on housing, especially on the poor. As I list some of these examples, as Senator Rennick listed some of his examples, I urge you to think about the impact on our culture in this country. 

The tax system is Australia’s most destructive system. What behaviours does it drive? We’ve got the best and brightest accountants and lawyers in this country fighting the government, not helping our producers to fight our competitors overseas—the Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Americans. We’ve now got a tax system that’s grown-up like Topsy; it’s a mishmash of dishonest promises to various vested interests for favours. What behaviours does that drive? Is that productive? It’s certainly not productive. Inefficient or suboptimal allocation of capital, allocation of resources, leads to inefficient or suboptimal decisions and a waste of resources and inefficient allocation to minimise tax rather than to maximise wealth and value. 

Then we have the ATO in a position where it can level complaints against people and businesses—small businesses particularly, because they don’t have the lawyers to back them up. In addition to prosecuting those cases, they adjudicate on those cases. How can that be justice? It’s not justice. It leads to corruption—and we saw that in the Australian Taxation Office just a few years ago. 

There is the complexity of various structures that Senator Rennick mentioned; he’s got far more experience in that than I have. They’re unfair to people who can’t set up structures. Senator Rennick discussed some of the modern structures in the technologies that have come up. That increases the appeal for workarounds. 

Then we’ve got something that Senator Hanson has talked about for many years, since 1996: multinationals basically pay no or little company tax. These use their resources for free. We’ve got the world’s biggest freeloader, the biggest tax avoider in the world, Chevron, taking our gas and sending it overseas, using our infrastructure, using our security forces, using our education system and not paying much at all for the gas. This is a figure I got from Jim Killaly, the former Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Large Business and International, who retired in 2015 or 2016. I’ve met him. He said in both the nineties and in 2010—and it’s quoted in the newspapers—that 90 per cent of Australia’s large businesses are foreign-owned and since 1953 have paid little or no company tax. Who’s paying that share of tax? It’s the men and women of Australia, working families. 

Since 1953, when we had double taxation legislation enacted by the Menzies Liberal government, we’ve had foreign companies paying little or no company tax. In the 1980s, we had Labor, with the petroleum resource rent tax, making sure that large companies such as Chevron pay little or no tax when exporting our gas from the North West Shelf. Then we had transfer pricing rorts and so many other rorts, which Senator Rennick went into. So terms of reference (c) and (d) are definitely worth keeping. 

The tax reform, while it’s necessary and arguably one of the most important things in this country, is difficult because the uniparty, Liberal and Labor, sees new ideas, seizes on new ideas and then basically tells lies and misrepresents to destroy our tax system. Paul Keating, as Treasurer to Bob Hawke, introduced the concept of the GST. Later, when John Hewson raised it as opposition leader, who smashed it? Paul Keating smashed it. He destroyed the GST concept even though he’d come so close to putting it over the line in Australia. 

When Pauline Hanson, who wasn’t a senator at the time, got hold of the transaction tax, it was also sent to Costello by the originators of that taxation system and taxation proposal. Peter Costello, as Treasurer—and a good treasurer—was asked about it and he said: ‘Sounds like a good system. We must have a look at it.’ Then Senator Hanson introduced it to the public, and he used it to try to destroy her. 

And look at my motion for stopping bracket creep—a motion on a Labor bill for stopping bracket creep. Labor stood right up there and said it supports work to remove indexing of bracket creep, but it voted against it. The LNP, the Liberals and Nationals, did something similar. They stood up—Senator Hume, I think it was—and said, ‘We support removal of bracket creep, the stealth tax, the hidden tax, the deceit tax,’ but they voted against the indexation of bracket creep. Barely a few weeks later, Senator Sharma, in his first speech, said that one of his goals was to get rid of bracket creep. Well, pile on, but just a few weeks earlier he had voted against removing bracket creep. 

As Senator Rennick has already mentioned, the tax system has been wangled and mismanaged to protect special interest groups feeding off tax loopholes. The terms of reference (e), (f), (g) and (h) are all necessary. Tax is the cost of government. That’s necessary. But it’s now got to the point where tax, in this country of ours, is the cost of excess government interference and excess waste—well, all waste. It’s the cost of poor governance, and it’s the poor who pay regressively for it. 

I support Senator Rennick’s motion as a step to exposing the harm and inefficiency of the tax system. Because of the complexities of the tax system and because of the politics around it, I think the first thing to do is to get an agreement to understand that the tax system is so destructive and so inefficient. Senator Rennick’s motion is a commendable first step to exposing the inefficiencies and the unfairness in the tax system. Once there’s an agreement on the inefficiencies, then we need to develop principles—not a system but principles: for example, simplicity; efficiency, so the tax system actually collects more than the cost of implementing that tax; fairness; objectivity; and the fact that it’s inescapable, so we don’t have multinational companies coming here, stealing our resources and assets, using our infrastructure and our people, and skipping the country without paying their fair share. So we develop principles and get agreement on them, and then, once that’s done, the specific system falls out. 

I see Senator Rennick’s motion as leading to an important first step in identifying the problems and some of the solutions and then, ultimately, we can take the next step: comprehensive tax reform, defining the ultimate system and the transition of baby steps to getting there. I support Senator Rennick’s motion. Question agreed to. 

/3 Comments/by

Coalition Complain Labor’s Renewable Target is Behind Schedule

,

The coalition is complaining that Labor’s “renewables” target is falling behind, which is a good thing!

It’s time to tell foreign, unelected organisations backed by billionaire donors to stop dictating what we do in Australia and to bugger off. Australia’s wealth should be used to benefit Australians, plain and simple.

Transcript

For those watching at home, we’re debating a motion the Liberals-Nationals coalition introduced proposing a matter of public importance. The motion complains that, ‘Labor’s 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target is way behind schedule.’ I have two responses to that: ‘Who cares!’ and ‘Good!’ Renewables are the collection of wind, solar, hydrogen, battery, pumped hydro and other scams that parasitic billionaires own and pump up with billions more in taxpayer subsidies. Every new solar panel and every new wind turbine installed represents another increase in Australians’ power bills. 

I commend the Liberals and Nationals for further opening the debate on nuclear, which One Nation has always advocated. I cannot abide, though, the insistence that we do nuclear so that we can meet net zero targets. Net zero is economic suicide, human catastrophe and environmental disaster. The only thing that can truly bring Australian power bills down is coal and, in North Queensland, hydro. To comply with net zero, the coalition’s proposal is to forcibly acquire coal-fired power stations, shut them down and replace them with nuclear. We don’t need to end coal to do nuclear. We can do both. Why would we stop using coal here while we ship hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal to China and other countries every year. The United Nations World Economic Forum net zero target: that’s why. A foreign, unelected bureaucratic organisation is telling Australians what we can and can’t do. 

There’s only one solution: tell the foreign, unelected organisations and their billionaire donors, like Bill Gates, to bugger off. Australia is one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. We should be using every bit of these resources right here for the benefit of Australians and especially for getting back to being the source of the world’s cheapest electricity. Put Australians first. 

/4 Comments/by

What is Bracket Creep?

As inflation rages on, the Government is making money out of it through “Bracket Creep” – collecting more taxes.

I moved an amendment to a bill so that tax thresholds are indexed to inflation, meaning you won’t pay more tax because of inflation. Predictably, the major parties voted it down. They rely on squeezing more and more tax out of you and making money out of inflation.

This clip from the Centre for Independent Studies is a great explainer on how “Bracket Creep” works so that the Government benefits from inflation at your expense.

/by

$18 Billion in COVID Vaccines 💉

,

In a recent senate estimate session, I raised questions about the massive purchase of 267 million COVID-19 vaccine doses for Australia’s 27 million population. Despite only using a fraction of these doses, concerns remain about transparency and cost efficiency of that purchase.

Bureaucrats state that there was a need for a diverse vaccine portfolio and future supplies, yet exact delivery figures remain undisclosed due to commercial sensitivities. 👂 Listen as they sidestep the questions.

The question remains, was the expenditure justified and how much has actually been delivered.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?  

Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money. 

Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.  

Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?  

Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?  

Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?  

Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.  

Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?  

Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.  

Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—  

Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.  

Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.  

Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’d like the data. 

/by

The NDIS System is Broken

During recent Estimates, NDIS Integrity Chief, Mr. John Dardo, stated that 90% of plan managers showed significant signs of fraud, and 87% of service providers were unregistered and unmonitored, lacking adequate training for their responsibilities. Mr Dardo said, “we have no idea what they do when putting in their invoices.” This underscores the broken state of the NDIS, stemming from an ill-considered election promise devoid of data, reminiscent of the Gillard government’s hasty policy announcements without sufficient planning.

I proposed that an inquiry should evaluate the merits of returning responsibility for these services back to the states from which they originated. I pointed out that an unintended consequence has been a shortage of workers in the health and aged care sectors due to the excessively high pay NDIS service providers receive—often triple what they would earn in equivalent roles within these sectors.

Labor’s penchant for wasteful spending was exemplified by the squandering of $430 million on “the Voice,” funds that could have been more effectively allocated to NDIS services. 

Ultimately, taxpayers foot the bill for this waste. I advocate for a shift away from the costly and ineffective centralised service model towards competitive federalism.

Transcript

At the recent Senate estimates hearings, the NDIS integrity chief, Mr John Dardo, admirably confirmed that 90 per cent of plan managers displayed significant indicators of fraud. The level of fraud it is now so high that there are dozens of examples of organised crime groups abusing the systems, with millions of dollars being rorted. The system is so out of control that 87 per cent of service providers are unregistered and unmonitored. I quote words that appeared in an article about Mr Dardo: 

We have no idea of knowing what they do when they put in their invoices. 

It’s taxpayers’ money, spent on something they have no idea of. He had the courage to admit that. He said that existing cases exceeded Australia’s judicial capacity, without finding more. 

NDIS funds must not be used to pay for sex workers, expensive holidays or new cars that other taxpayers cannot afford. Projections are for a blowout of NDIS spending to $90 billion within a decade; it must be prevented. Using the system to peddle drugs is happening extensively. The name of this bill says what we already know about the NDIS. It’s broken and getting worse. It’s a licence for criminals and fraudsters to print money. It’s so far off track that the hope that this bill will get things back on track is a pigs-can-fly pipedream. 

Since the Gillard Labor government’s NDIS inception, there has never been a track. It was hatched with no meaningful metrics or plan. It was simply an election slogan to desperately buy votes in an election that Prime Minister Gillard lost. It was hatched as a headline grabber and a vote harvester. Typical of ‘uniparty’ initiatives—and of policies and legislation in our parliament over recent decades—it lacks the discipline of a system based on hard data and a focus on customer needs. It was done to look good, not to do good. A hastily cobbled together election policy, it had holes in it a mile wide that clearly enabled fraudulent claims to be made with little chance of being picked up and stopped. 

As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, Senator Pauline Hanson and I have been calling out the NDIS fraud model since 2016. A significant effort is now needed to remove dodgy plan managers and service providers and to protect capable and honest plan managers and providers, using stricter laws to prevent participants from being defrauded, to prevent unscrupulous service providers from abusing vulnerable people and to save NDIS for genuinely disabled people with real needs. If we really care, we’ll clean up this mess. If we really care for disabled people, then we’ll have to get tough and sort out the criminals and the rorters. Providers, managers and recipients who commit fraud under this NDIS scheme must be heavily penalised and banned from any involvement in the scheme again. Wasted money through overspending has cost taxpayers well in excess of $8 billion already, and it’s essential to ensure that the current 150,000 unregistered care or service providers become registered and then are monitored for effective compliance. 

The Gillard Labor government introduced the NDIS. In their election loss, they handed the incoming coalition government an illegitimate, loose and sloppy mishmash of slogans and empty titles, lacking discipline, coherence, focus and care, and lacking solid systems. If they’d cared, Labor would have put together a proper system, but they didn’t. They should have put together a system to provide effective care and to protect taxpayers’ hard-earned money. The Liberal and National parties tried to refine the monster, and now the NDIS is back in Labor hands for more mismanagement. The NDIS must be reconsidered and protections against mismanagement and abuse strengthened.  

But who should be responsible for management? References to the non-constitutional National Cabinet are just a poor joke. National Cabinet is a mere grouping of state ministers responsible for similar portfolios, with no statutory authority or constitutional recognition of its existence or authority. It’s toothless—all mouth and no accountability. There’s no accountability in the current system. Right at the very top there’s the bogus unconstitutional National Cabinet. In such cabinets the state and federal government ministers just go, ‘They’re responsible.’ That means no-one is responsible. There is no accountability. It’s fundamentally structurally flawed. 

I suggest an inquiry to consider the alternative model: putting the responsibility for providing for the needs of people living with a disability back to the states and territories, where it was stolen from. Clearly, each state is responsible. The states would work to ensure that services were monitored, reasonable and meeting client needs under a model reflecting the proven benefits of competitive federalism, the foundation under which our Constitution and government is made. This will provide the level of accountability that has been missing to date. Centralising doesn’t work; decentralising closer to the surface does. One of the unintended consequences of Labor’s mismanagement of NDIS funds is the shortage of aged-care and healthcare workers who migrated to work in the lucrative NDIS model. This is because NDIS wages are so overinflated that a worker can receive three times the rate of pay for the same work done in other sectors. This is not just hurting the NDIS. This rorting, mismanagement and waste of taxpayer funds is hurting aged-care and healthcare workers. 

Labor wastes money in other areas, too. Look at the wasted $430 million plus that the doomed referendum cost Australians—just like the Gillard government’s NDIS facade, which was based on slogans and empty promises lacking substance. Just think how that $430 million could have been spent directly to improve the lives of remote Australians living in need or spent on improving NDIS services and security for people who are disabled in some way. Then there are the follies of government cutbacks, such as when psychological services were cut from 20 appointments to a relatively useless 10 appointments for needy participants. Just think about what could have been supported with the wasted money—health, education and child protection are a few. Frontline staff are in short supply now, partly because of poor pay, inadequate training and lack of support and partly because of NDIS rorts and sloppiness. Many NDIS carers and support staff have little or no training in basic personal caring skills. Many recipients have physical health needs and their carers should have sound skills in lifting, mobility, feeding, toileting and showering. Expecting NDIS carers to do these things with no, or inadequate, training is unfair and dangerous for the recipient and the carer. 

I have described a support system in crisis. This bill tinkers around the edges. As it is, this bill will not make significant positive differences, and who pays for all of this waste? Always, it’s we the people. Instead of tinkering around the edges of a broken system, do the work! I call on the government to do the work to define disabled people’s needs for service and taxpayers’ needs for protection. Instead of the ubiquitous fraud under low levels of accountability, consider returning to the original system of state governance. One Nation knows what history repeatedly proves: administration and services are of higher quality when services are closer to recipients. That enables understanding of needs, which is core to effective service. Replacing centralisation with competitive federalism provides a marketplace in governance. That’s what we all want. That’s what we need because improved governance provides accountability, effective service and better care. 

/1 Comment/by