Posts

FSANZ Handling of Lab Grown Meat is a Concern

,

I asked questions about the progress of an application by Vow Food for lab-grown quail meat. This is a serious matter that will provide approval for an entirely new industry — an industry that is promoted as being environmentally friendly, while offering a high standard of food, when the truth is the complete opposite.

My questions were based on the timetable for approval published on Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) own website for this application. A timetable that appears to be out of date. It’s not acceptable that FSANZ would not keep the index page for this most important of applications up to date. I trust the answers provided, which extend the timetable 8 months, are truthful.

While FSANZ are apparently calling for submissions, there has been no attempt to promote the ability of the public and interested groups to do so. This suggests the submission will be curated to provide support for the application. Lab grown meat is a massive threat to public health and safety.

The product is grown in a bioreactor and develops a nutrition profile which is directly related to the fertilizer solution added to the growing medium. Fatal bacteria such as e-coli and salmonella must be controlled. The name of the game here is profit, taking food production away from family farms that produce a healthy natural product and moving it to city-based intensive production facilities owned by foreign corporations operating for profit. I have no confidence under this model that the main input — the nutrition slurry, and the anti-bacterial protections — will not be dialled down so as to dial profits up. I will return to this topic in May.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’ve got a document that I’m going to try to table later. My questions are about the progress of the Vow company’s lab-grown quail meat. It appears your organisation has recommended that your board approve the lab-grown meat at its next meeting later this month. Is that correct?

Dr Cuthbert: No, that’s not correct. That process goes through two calls for submissions, so we’ve got two processes where we seek comments from any interested stakeholder.

Senator ROBERTS: Any Australian?

Dr Cuthbert: Any stakeholder. It just finished its first call for submissions on, I believe, 5 February. We received approximately 40 submissions on that first round. We’ll then be considering all of the submissions that we’ve received and go out for a second round of consultation once we’ve considered all of those submissions. There will be that second opportunity for people to comment. Only after that will we be putting it forward to the board for consideration.

CHAIR: I’m just going to provide advice on this document. I’m still seeking the source to table, but I’m happy for it to be distributed to witnesses to assist in answering questions. Then we’ll provide advice on tabling.

Senator ROBERTS: Why are there calls for comment?

Dr Cuthbert: Under the FSANZ Act there are models under which we can assess a product. The framework we utilise depends on the product’s complexity and other variables. For this one, because it’s a normal food and because of the complexity that was assessed, we determined that the process that it’s under will include two rounds of public consultation.

Senator ROBERTS: If the board approves a product, which—is that likely?

Dr Cuthbert: We’re still in the process of—

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s too early to say if it’s likely or not. When will you finish your process of consultation and listening, and make a recommendation to the board? When will the board sign off—if it signs off? I’m after rough timing.

Dr Cuthbert: I might seek input from Ms Jenny Hazelton, who’s managing the branch responsible for this piece of work.

Ms Hazelton: The normal process for applications—there are some statutory time frames for completion of that work. At this stage we’re anticipating it will be later this year when we will be putting this to the board. As Dr Cuthbert’s already indicated, we do have another round of public comment, and what comes forward in that second round of public comment will likely then determine when it will actually go to the board.

Senator ROBERTS: So it could go to the board sometime after July or maybe towards the end of the year?

Ms Hazelton: Closer to the end of the year, more likely.

Senator ROBERTS: How long will it take to be gazetted if the board approves it?

Ms Hazelton: The process from there would be that we would notify the Food Ministers Meeting of the outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s federal and state?

Dr Cuthbert: Yes. That’s the representation on the Food Ministers Meeting. They have 60 days to consider that and either ask for us to review that decision or accept, and it would then go on to a gazettal after that time.

Senator ROBERTS: So they’re part of the process of approving or rejecting?

Ms Hazelton: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How does that process work? Is it a unanimous vote, or is it just that each state signs up or doesn’t sign up?

Ms Hazelton: It operates through a consensus. Sorry—each state and territory and New Zealand has an opportunity to vote for whether they will accept the approval or whether they will ask for a review.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I referenced your document 273-23 ‘Consumer insights tracker’, which is one of these. There it is; 273-23. Are you familiar with that?

Dr Cuthbert: Our consumer insights tracker?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. This is a supporting document to consumer literature review application A1269.

Dr Cuthbert: Apologies. Yes; thank you very much.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s available on your website, which concludes, the best name to give this novel food is ‘cell cultured,’ which makes it sound better than ‘lab grown’ or ‘Frankenfood’. I note that your language on subsequent documents uses ‘cell cultured’ or ‘cultured’. Why are you using language that promotes adoption of this product?

Ms Hazelton: We did do a literature review in terms of looking at consumers understanding of what that type of language would be. We are only at the first stage of this process—we’ve just received submissions—so that’s what we have proposed to date. That may not necessarily be what is ultimately in the final approval.

Senator ROBERTS: Your document, which was in that pile there, A1269 hazard and risk assessment, that document references the food safety aspects of cell-based food from the United Nations and the World Health Organization—both organisations I have very little regard for, but nonetheless even they list 53 potential hazards from lab grown meat. That report concludes on page 118: ‘Risk assessment was only the first part of the process of approving lab grown meat for human consumption. What needs to follow are our regulatory authorities cooperating with each other to share information around these potential health risks, which can be pretty severe.’ Rather than doing that and asking for in-depth studies, is FSANZ intending on waving these products through?

Dr Cuthbert: We will continue to do our assessment, and that assessment is quite broad, to determine the safety that needs to be considered through the process.

Senator ROBERTS: Has Vow addressed all your concerns?

Ms Leemhuis: We have received a raft of information from the applicant, Vow, but in addition to that we do look globally at what other evidence is available to inform our assessment.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you take on notice—I won’t take up the committee’s time now because we’re behind schedule—the approval processes or the steps that you take to consider an application, please? Did you ask Vow for genotoxicity studies in rats, commonly used to ascertain the safety of the product on reproduction and on the growth of cancers or organ damage.

Ms Leemhuis: We regularly ask for toxicity studies for almost all applications that we receive. I’d have to take on notice the specific studies we received for this one, although they will be referenced in the A1269 report online.

Senator ROBERTS: Including genotoxicity?

Ms Leemhuis: Including genotoxicity, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: The approval process seems to be, ‘Well, we can’t find literature that says’—this is casting the net broadly about the approval process, not necessarily yours—’this novel food is dangerous, so we won’t do the work to fill that gap and make sure this product is safe.’ That sounds like malfeasance. Have you done much work with other agencies, including your own, on whether the process is rigorous?

Ms Leemhuis: We work internationally with all of our regulatory partners in this area. We are not alone in looking at these new products coming to market, so, yes, we have regular conversations with a number of agencies globally around this, and the evidence required to assess the safety of these products.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice to list those agencies for me, please?

Ms Leemhuis: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And would you characterise the exercise in some agencies overseas as just tick and flick, ‘Just approve it’, ‘Might as well do it’?

Ms Leemhuis: I’m not sure we could comment on other agencies processes, just our own.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How would you describe your process of assessment and approval? Rigorous?

Ms Leemhuis: Yes.

Dr Cuthbert: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: These products, these fake meats, are grown in a bioreactor that needs to force cell growth as fast as possible to make money in what is a chemical and energy intensive process. One outcome that many authors have warned about is how the forcing of cell division leads to cancerous cells growing and that people could, in fact, be eating a product that is cancer. I don’t even see that dealt with in your risk assessment. Why not?

Ms Leemhuis: We look at the toxicity of these products and all the evidence provided for that. So, not only do we look at the end product, but we also look at all the inputs into how that product is made. Our view is informed by that.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. These products have all the nutrition in them that is introduced into the bioreactor. You talk about nutritional value, but it appears no ongoing monitoring will be imposed on Vow to ensure they keep shovelling these nutrients in there at the same rate as the samples they send you. Is that correct? Is there any ongoing monitoring?

Ms Leemhuis: Again, I’d note we’re not finalised with our process yet. In terms of management, that will be in the next call for submission.

Senator ROBERTS: Forget about Vow for a minute. If you authorise or approve this fake meat from some company, then do you monitor the consequences of that in succeeding years?

Ms Leemhuis: FSANZ has an ongoing role in monitoring the food supplies, so, yes. But as part of our assessment process we can also impose conditions that do look to monitor these products if they are of concern or concerns are raised through the assessment that we want to continue to look at into the future.

Senator ROBERTS: I guess there’s a difference between monitoring something in closed conditions and letting it go through a manufacturing process that may or may not be sloppy—who knows what will happen in there? Listeria has been identified as a medium- to high-risk foodborne pathogen that can enter during the final stage of cell growth, meaning it gets into the bioreactor. You have identified potential risks from salmonella and E. coli. Vow have made the claim that lab meats help antimicrobial resistance by using fewer antimicrobial products in production, cleaning and sanitising their factory than natural meat. How accurate is that statement?

Ms Leemhuis: Sorry; I’m not quite sure what statement you’re referring to.

Senator ROBERTS: Vow has made the claim that lab meats help antimicrobial resistance by using fewer antimicrobial products in production, cleaning and sanitising than is the case in natural meat. Is that correct?

Dr Cuthbert: I don’t know that it’s necessary for us to comment on the accuracy of a claim that a company is making. Our job is to ensure that we’re evaluating the safety of the product that’s before us to determine if it’s suitable and safe to be circulated for consumption. Whether it’s more or less than another process is not part of the process.

Senator ROBERTS: So I guess you’ll do that assessment as part of your approval process?

Mr Comley: What’s an absolute assessment?

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Mr Comley?

Mr Comley: Sorry; I should leave it to the food authority. I was just saying I think what Dr Cuthbert was saying is it’s an absolute assessment rather than relative assessment against other products that are on the market at the moment.

Dr Cuthbert: Exactly.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Your documentation, some could say, dresses up this decision as some kind of saviour for the environment. I have circulated an Oxford University article and a peer reviewed paper that finds that very energy intensive bioreactors could have worse long-term environmental consequences than livestock farming in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions—CO2e. Now I don’t think the carbon dioxide production is at all a threat to humanity but, for those who do, recent calculations show that if we wanted to meet the additional demand for meat by 2030 exclusively with cultured meat we would have to build 150,000 bioreactors, which would produce 352 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent as against 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for natural livestock farming. Why shouldn’t people conclude that approving this lab meat is a terrible mistake?

Ms Leemhuis: Just in terms of our roles and responsibilities, it really is about the safety of this product. That’s the act. It says that our role is to assess the safety of the product for human consumption, which is the role we have taken in looking at this application—

Senator ROBERTS: And not just in the lab, but in practical terms.

Ms Leemhuis: rather than the carbon emissions. That’s not within our scope to consider; it’s the safety of the product.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you very much.

/by

The WHO Is Taking Two Shots At Increasing Its Powers

,

There are currently two separate proposals being promoted by the WHO to increase their power. Firstly, the new Pandemic Agreement and secondly, changes to the WHO’s ‘operating manual’, the International Health Regulations. As the latest version of these documents is not online, I asked the Health Department to provide them.

Given that New Zealand has already published the changes they will be supporting in the IHR Amendments, I asked why is the Australian government’s position so secretive. Does this government take the position that these potentially sweeping changes to our health system are none of the public’s business?

Of these two proposals being put to the WHO’s member states, it’s the IHR amendments that still contain clauses giving the WHO powers of compulsion — medical tyranny. Officials and the Minister failed to actually provide the position of the Government on these changes – where is the transparency and accountability promised by the Albanese government?

Here is the Minister’s response – “The World Health Authority is exactly that. The World Health Organisation can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty in regards to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our border. I don’t think I can be any clearer.”

This ignores that the WHO does have a power to compel by using the UN’s powers over the SWIFT international payment system, and has used those powers against Russia and Belarus recently. The answer is specious.

Let’s hope the promise not to sign away Australian sovereignty is one promise this government keeps.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations and the so-called pandemic treaty or accord or protocol or whatever it’s called these days. The World Health Organization is currently reviewing two separate proposals to increase its powers—firstly, the pandemic agreement. A recent version of that document is on the World Health Organization website, dated 30 October 2023. Is this the latest version? If not, can I have the latest version?

Mr Exell:I do think there may have been an additional draft, but I’ll check and come back to you. I’m happy to provide the latest publicly released documents that are being considered.

Senator ROBERTS: The second proposal is for amendments to the World Health Organization’s operating manual, the International Health Regulations. These were proposed by the United States in 2022. They have apparently been modified in a negotiation process over time—several times! Do you have the latest version of this document, please?

Mr Exell:Again, the latest version of the document will be on the WHO website, but I’m happy to provide that to you, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: The New Zealand government has published sections of the International Health Regulations changes it will be supporting. Clearly, their openness is more than yours on exactly the same matter. Minister, why is the government’s position to be considered none the public’s business on this very significant international health regulations draft?

Senator McCarthy:Senator Roberts, I’d totally disagree with your question in terms of the government not wanting to advise Australians on issues. I’d totally reject outright the premise of your question.

Senator ROBERTS: While the latest public version of the pandemic agreement does not sign away Australian sovereignty, the latest public version of the International Health Regulations amendments do sign away Australian’s sovereignty. Minister, will the Albanese government support the International Health Regulations amendments if they continue, as written, to include compulsion on Australia to follow World Health Organization directives?

Senator McCarthy:Our government always looks to the international sector in terms of what’s going on, whether it’s in health or any other areas, so we will always continue to do that. But of course our priority is Australians and the sovereignty of our decisions with regard to health for Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re guaranteeing sovereignty?

Mr Comley:I’d don’t think we would agree with your characterisation that it cedes sovereignty. Mr Exell might want to comment on how that will operate in practice.

Mr Exell: I am happy to add that I think both draft documents that are available refer to protecting the sovereignty of nations. The process is actually a member state process. In that sense there is no WHO. The working groups are led by member states. The participation is by member states. Then, when there is consideration of the Australian government, there is a formal process through the JSCOT mechanism that individually considers each and every resolution or change or consideration that comes before it. There is no notion of Australia giving up sovereignty. There’s an active process of consideration at both levels—the World Health Organization by Australia and other counties, and then, when it reaches the domestic ledge, it is also considered very carefully.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that in earlier versions of the International Health Regulations that were strongly worded compulsions on the African nations. Several members of parliaments and congresses around the world have kicked up such a stink that the International Health Regulations have been watered back down again. But I’m very concerned about sovereignty.

Mr Exell:There are always a range of proposals and resolutions and adapted text. That is happening right now; there are consultations that are underway. The due date for a draft to go to the World Health Assembly is by May this year. They’re trying to do that, but there are lots of changes and discussions going on, so I wouldn’t want to comment on one particular draft or one particular set of ideas put forward by various countries.

Senator McCarthy:I have to reiterate that in terms of public health policies, Australia will always retain its own sovereignty in making decisions around our borders. I need that to be really clear with you, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: I need to be very clear: I’m concerned about how much the international influence, particularly through the World Health Organization, drove our response to COVID. Minister, will you give a clear statement now that the directions of the World Health Organization are not binding on Australia and that the decision to follow WHO guidance, if it’s made, is entirely a matter for the Australian government, who can then be held to account for these decisions?

Senator McCarthy: The world health authority is exactly that: the World Health Organization can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty with regard to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our borders. I don’t think I can be any clearer.

CHAIR:I do need to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: I hope the term ‘world health authority’ is not a Freudian slip.

/15 Comments/by

The UN-WEF Menu Plan for the West

,

The UN-WEF menu plan for the West is about power over the necessities of life — food, energy and water. This unelected socialist bureaucracy, with their loyalty directed to foreign power centres, are busy punishing you and the Australian economy using this made-up concept of a carbon footprint.

The truth is, our agricultural footprint in Australia does not contribute to global “emissions” — not that this would be a problem anyway. Australia has so many trees, grass and crops that every atom of CO2 and methane we produce is re-absorbed into the environment, producing higher growth and heathier soils.

During question time, I asked Senator Wong to provide the figures used to justify the Albanese Government’s nation-killing environmental policies. No sensible answer was received. This debate must be about science and data, not scare campaigns and hubris.

The war on farming is not about the environment, it’s about control. It creates a false sense of food scarcity to make lab-grown, food-like substances a profitable industry for the predatory billionaires.

One Nation will always stand up for Australia’s farmers and rejects the UN-WEF goals of food supply control.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator Gallagher: Could you repeat the question? We missed the last 15 seconds of it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): Senator, I am awaiting statistics as we speak, but what I can say to you, and as someone who was the climate change minister, is that there is opportunity in agriculture to deal with climate change. As you know, for many years the National Farmers Federation had a much more forward-leaning policy than the coalition when it came to agriculture and climate change. I’m advised it’s in the order of 16 to 17 per cent. Thank you very much, Senator Watt. For the year to June 2023, the agriculture sector was responsible for 17.7 per cent of Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. 

Modelling by ABARES shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. I recall that one of the early reports I read which made me so much more acutely aware of the risk to agriculture of climate change was a report which CSIRO did many years ago, before we won government in 2007. It modelled that Goyder’s line would move south of Clare. For anybody from South Australia—and I know that would be very bad news for Senator Farrell in particular—who knows what the mid-north is like, that is a very frightening prospect. We do think it is important to look at how it is that our food and fibre producers can best adapt to a changing climate. Many are already doing so and are obviously involved in the discussions with government about climate policy. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: As the World Economic Forum were meeting in Davos last month, the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, stated that agriculture accounts for between 26 and 33 per cent of world emissions and will account for half a degree of warming by 2050. He further stated that a warming planet will grow less food, not more, and so farming needs to be a major focus of reducing human carbon dioxide production. Minister, how do you reconcile the production of food accounting for between 26 and 33 per cent of emissions with your figure of 17.7? 

Senator WONG: There’s a different denominator, Senator. One is as a percentage of Australian emissions, and one is as a percentage of global emissions. I also am unclear from the context and detail of the quote you gave me whether or not Special Envoy Kerry was dealing with food production further downstream as well. I don’t know what he’s referring to. But I certainly agree with what he was saying about the implications for food security. 

What is also true is that not only is that a substantial issue for Australia, because it will affect our capacity to produce the levels of grain production we have, which is obviously very important for our economy, but also the nations on who this will fall most hard are those nations who have the least capacity to be resilient to this change. If you look at countries like Bangladesh— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The methane cycle, soil carbon sequestration and forest carbon sequestration absorb all Australian agricultural emissions, meaning Australian agriculture contributes nothing to global emissions. Minister, is the war on farming not about the environment but rather about creating a false scarcity of food to force the adoption of laboratory-grown food-like substances that predatory billionaires own for their profit and control? 

Senator WONG: Senator, there’s a lot in that question, but I want to go back to the fundamental proposition: climate change is already affecting our agricultural production now. I read to you the figures earlier: ABARES modelling shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. No, you don’t like the facts, and we know— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick? 

Senator Rennick: A point of order, Madam President: models are not facts. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, that’s a debating point. Minister Wong, please continue. 

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, I understand your views on this. I disagree with them. What I would say to you is this: if you go and talk to a lot of Australia’s primary producers, if you go and talk to primary producers in the Pacific— 

Senator Canavan interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Canavan. 

Senator WONG: or South-East Asia, the truth is that people are already experiencing the impact of climate change on agricultural production. We might want to wish it away for ideological reasons, as Senator Canavan does, but— (Time expired) 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to wait for silence. 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to call an opposition senator, so those senators interjecting are wasting her time. 

/11 Comments/by

It’ll All Come Out in the Wash

,

The World Economic Forum seeks control over the most mundane aspects of our lives, even how often you wash your jeans. While the temptation is to laugh at the hubris of these people, there is a genuinely evil agenda in place that theatre around frequency of washing is designed to distract us from.

Today I spoke about the interference of the globalist billionaires in our food production. This is disturbing. The campaign against farming is really a campaign against one of the mainstays of life. It is a campaign about control through a false scarcity of food.

The UN and the WEF seek control not only over food production, but energy and ultimately, global finance. It’s time the Australian parliament stands up for farmers and the rural communities. After all, no farmers no food. Only bugs and lab-grown ‘meat’.

Transcript

When the World Economic Forum launched their social media campaign in 2018 carrying the slogan, ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy,’ I thought that finally the predatory billionaires who try to run the world had shown their hand. The public could finally see their fate if the World Economic Forum are allowed to succeed. That didn’t happen. The media, who have the same owners as the World Economic Forum, persisted with calling the World Economic Forum’s evil agenda ‘a conspiracy theory’. Even in this place there are only a handful of senators with the courage to call out the agenda for what it is: economic exploitation and social control. 

Over the break, the World Economic Forum revealed another aspect of their plan and they launched a campaign against laundry. Yes, really—laundry! They said jeans should not be washed more than once a month and most other clothes washed once a week. You will wear dirty clothes and be smelly and happy, apparently.

The temptation is to laugh at their desire to control even mundane aspects of our lives, yet the truth is much more frightening than that. The World Economic Forum have now turned their evil agenda to food.

The campaign against farming is really a campaign against one of the necessities of life—food. Predatory, parasitic billionaires, owning near urban intensive production facilities, are producing food-like substances for the masses, forcing the public into acceptance of the World Economic Forum’s fake global warming scam. These are their own stated motives: control food and control people. Whoever controls the food supply controls the people. Whoever controls the energy can control whole continents. Whoever controls money can control the whole world. The World Economic Forum and the predatory billionaires they represent are currently trying to do all three.

The Greens, Labor and the globalist Liberals will, of course, support the World Economic Forum. It is time the Australian parliament stood up for farmers and rural communities and for all Australians. 

/5 Comments/by

Damn the Economy – Net Zero at All Cost!

,

I questioned the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment & Water (DCCEEW) about a recent report from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The report was critical of the department.

The report from ANAO on Governance of Climate Change Commitments states that the DCCEEW CANNOT demonstrate the extent to which specific policies and programs have contributed, or are expected to contribute towards emissions reduction.

We are turning our entire economy upside down to chase this net-zero lunacy and no one can even say if it’s going to do anything.

Even though it was reported that the department agreed with all five ANAO recommendations, the Minister and staff, in response to my estimates’ questioning, said that they do not agree with ANAO’s findings and read out a long list of projections and guestimates.

I asked again for evidence of human-induced climate change and was told the government is committed to the United Nations 2050 Net Zero. I will continue asking about a cost-benefit analysis on Net-Zero, which appears not to exist. And finally, I will request how much this new Labor Department for Climate Change is going to cost the Australian taxpayer.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The Australian National Audit Office said in January—this is from its own report: 

DCCEEW reports annually on progress towards targets, however is unable to demonstrate the extent to which specific Australian Government policies and programs have contributed or are expected to contribute towards overall emissions reduction. 

I find that incredible. We see that solar and wind have taken Australia from lowest cost electricity providers to amongst the highest. There are dramatic impacts on cost of living and adverse effects on inflation and grocery prices. Everything is impacted by energy and electricity, including security and international competitiveness. I’ve just come back from North Queensland, where I’ve seen massive destruction of the environment up there. Some of the large solar and wind projects in Western Victoria and in North Queensland are not even connected to the grid, but we’re paying for them. At your behest, the government is completely upending our entire economy. You are destroying the cheap power grid we had. You’re going to make it nearly impossible to buy a new Toyota Hilux. You’re trying to force everyone into electric vehicles. You’re spending $20 billion on Snowy 2 and you can’t tell anyone whether anything the government has done has actually made a difference. I think that is because it hasn’t made a difference. What quantifiable difference have these solar and wind and other so-called policies made? 

Mr Fredericks: Senator, if it’s okay with you, I might take up the ANAO issue. There was quite a detailed response from the department to that. If it is okay with you, I might ask Ms Evans to give you a response. 

Senator ROBERTS: A response to the ANAO findings. I would also like to know the quantifiable difference these policies have made to our country. 

Ms Evans: I will answer both. In the first part, the department disagrees with the finding that you read out from the ANAO report. We do, in fact, have quite a comprehensive way of reporting on policies and programs and what they contribute to our emissions reductions, which Ms Rowley will be able to take you through in a moment. With regard to the overall outcomes, you can see that—in fact, it is part of the same answer—in our annual national greenhouse gas inventory and all of the results that come from that there is a definite decline in Australia’s emissions over the period that we’ve been looking at. Again, Ms Rowley can give you the specific details on that. I think we are up to about 24 or 25 per cent below 2005 levels at this stage. All of those policies that you were referring to have contributed to those reductions in emissions, which are contributing to a global response to climate change. Ms Rowley will take you through the very substantial way in which we track our policies and programs. 

Ms Rowley: Thanks you, Ms Evans. The ANAO was essentially seeking measure by measure modelling and tracking the impact of every policy over time, which we consider is neither practical nor efficient given that different policies and measures interact, particularly as the policy mix changes over time. They are also impacted by structural changes in the economy. However, we evaluate the impact of policies and programs on emissions during their development. That is part of the public consultation on the design of the policies ex ante, so ahead of time. In general, we prioritise policies that are going to have a material impact on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. That analysis then becomes part of the cost-benefit analysis to inform government decisions. 

In terms of reporting on progress, this occurs through a number of channels. The department and government report progress against the 2030 target transparently and independently through channels such as the Climate Change Authority’s annual progress report, the minister’s annual climate change statement to parliament and Australia’s annual emissions projection report. As Ms Evans said, we also report on Australia’s actual emissions over time each year through our national inventory report and every quarter through the quarterly update. Both the inventory— 

Senator ROBERTS: Just a minute. So what you’re saying, as I understand it, is that various other entities report on this? 

Ms Rowley: Other entities, including the independent Climate Change Authority and the department through its work on the national inventory and the annual projections. 

Senator ROBERTS: But they actually report on aspects of it—bits of it, not the whole lot? 

Ms Rowley: No. Particularly documents like the emissions projections, which are one of our signature reports— 

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions projections? 

Ms Rowley: Emissions projections. It’s an annual report. It tracks and projects Australia’s progress towards its 2030 target. I could use that as an example to illustrate how we look at the impact of specific policies. The 2023 projections, which were published in December last year, include detailed analysis of the abatement arising from some of the government’s key mitigation policies. For example, the safeguard mechanism reforms are estimated to deliver just over 50 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail, including the projected mix of onsite abatement and the use of credits over time as well as how that policy impact is distributed across the different sectors, which are covered by the safeguard mechanism. It also includes details of the Australian carbon credit unit scheme, estimating that it will grow from delivering 17 million tonnes of abatement last year, 2023, to 30 million tonnes in 2033. Again, the projections provide reports on the types of projects, price forecasts and the sectoral split of activity. 

With the additional measures scenario, which is also part of that 2023 projections report, there are reports on the potential impacts of some of the policies that are still under detailed design and development. For example, the government’s 82 per cent renewable electricity target is supported by measures such as the capacity investment scheme and the Rewiring the Nation program, which is estimated to deliver 21 million tonnes of abatement in 2030. The projections report provides detail across the different electricity grids covered by that target. It also provides quantitative estimates for the fuel efficiency standard for new vehicles, which the government is currently consulting on. Whilst that was a relatively stylised analysis given that the policy is still being designed, we estimated that would deliver a net six million tonnes of abatement in 2030. 

Senator ROBERTS: That is a lot of alphabet soup. Thank you. The point is, though, you have no evidence. The ANAO is not convinced you have any evidence. You can’t demonstrate how a specific policy has made any difference to the production of carbon dioxide from human activity. That is not me saying it; that is the ANAO. 

Ms Rowley: Senator Roberts, you will recall that Ms Evans noted that the department disagrees with that finding. As I outlined, there is a range of analytic work and public reports that the department and other entities across government conduct to ensure that there is a careful analysis of the emissions implications of key policy reforms that have a material impact on Australia’s emissions. I have given you some examples of that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know whether you are aware of it or not, Ms Rowley, Ms Evans or Minister McAllister, but no-one anywhere has been able to provide me with a quantified specific effect of cutting carbon dioxide from human activity on climate. What basis is there for tracking policy when there’s no fundamental foundation for it anyway? So is anyone able to tell me the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of the climate specifically in a quantified way? How are you able to track that when there’s no basis for it? 

Senator McAllister: There are two things. One is that this is a well-worn path between you and me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yet, Minister, I still haven’t seen that. 

Senator McAllister: Perhaps I can answer. It is a source of fundamental disagreement. You do not accept the science that human activities— 

Senator ROBERTS: Correction. I do accept the actual empirical scientific evidence. 

CHAIR: Okay. Let’s not cut across each other. 

Senator ROBERTS: I want to make sure the minister doesn’t— 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, there is a difference of opinion here, a difference of interpretation of which science is whose. Can we stick to asking the questions and listening to the answers? You can probe it as much as you like. Let’s keep it civilised here. 

Senator McAllister: To assist Senator Roberts, I will put my answer in different terms. This government does accept the science that human activities are inducing global warming. That presents a threat to human systems and the biodiversity that our human activities depend upon. I understand from comments you’ve made previously, Senator Roberts, that is not your position. But that is the government’s position. As a consequence, we are committed to reducing Australia’s contribution to anthropogenic emissions to 2050. That is a position that, as I understand it, is bipartisan. I believe that remains the position of the coalition as well. It is the basis on which we are also committed to that by way of our participation in the processes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

Senator McAllister: The second point I wish to make is that this is not a feature of the ANAO’s assessment of the department. The question the ANAO sought to answer was whether the department is using its resources well to meet those emissions reduction targets. The evidence that has been provided to you by now Ms Evans and Ms Rowley goes to the way that the ANAO engaged with that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Can you tell me or anyone in the department, because you are driving this, the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decrease to our economy? What is the cost to individual Australians? I have never seen a cost-benefit analysis or a business case for this ever. No-one has ever said that they’ve done that. 

Ms Evans: We might take on notice to put down a response that adequately reflects the costs and benefits of climate action in Australia. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Evans. Specifically I would like to know the cost per unit of carbon dioxide decreasing. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to rotate the call. 

Senator ROBERTS: I would also like to know your total annual budget, please. 

Mr Fredericks: Of the department? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’ll take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

WEF Control of Money — “The party seeks power purely for its own sake” (George Orwell, 1984)

,

The World Economic Forum is not just an economic ‘think tank’. It isn’t just some bizarre entity that tries to insert itself into our lives with rules about how often we wash our jeans, drive our car, or eat red meat.

It’s the mouthpiece of the unseen hands manipulating world events.

All WEF vassal states, including Australia, are working on central bank digital currencies (CBDC) while simultaneously closing bank branches, eliminating cash and negatively influencing independent crypto currencies. By manipulating the price of Bitcoin (pump, dump, repeat), the unseen hand destroys trust in the non-CBDC. Explicitly, these governments are doing to nothing to protect or regulate crypto because the want private crypto currencies to fail.

How does this affect you? CBDCs are the ultimate control tool for governments. Censorship of free speech using misinformation laws is even more easily achieved when people’s finances are tied to a digital currency controlled by the government. A government promoting a dystopian future.

One Nation stands strongly opposed to the Labor party, the globalist Liberals and Greens promoting this dystopian future and coveting the power that comes with it. The choice for voters is clear.

Transcript

A popular quote reads: ‘Who controls the food supply controls the people. Who controls the energy can control a whole continent. Who controls money can control the whole world.’ Only the ignorant could possibly look at the world as it is in 2024 and think, ‘Nothing to see here.’ Farmers who are having their land confiscated under net zero measures are spraying effluent at politicians. Immigrants complaining about their handouts are causing violence across the West, including in our own Queensland communities. Anyone who sees our stagnant national wealth growth being divided among 10 million more people over the last decade knows there is less for everybody. Apparently no-one, having done the sums [inaudible], can deny this. War has broken out in multiple locations, and the mainstream media are doing their best to fan those flames into a third world war. 

The unseen hands that guide these world events have shown themselves via their mouthpiece, the World Economic Forum. Yesterday, I spoke of how the World Economic Forum was trying to control the world’s food and energy supply. Today, it’s the third element of the doctrine of global control: money. At the recent World Economic Forum Davos meeting, Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, announced a digital currency for the European Central Bank to ensure they remain the anchor of the European financial system to protect their power and control over money. All World Economic Forum vassal states, including Australia, are producing a central bank digital currency while at the same time closing bank branches, eliminating cash and manipulating nongovernment crypto. By 2030, the only payment mechanism will be their own digital currency and digital ID. It’s control of money. 

Then there’s a final element: a set of misinformation and disinformation laws that will ensure any attempt to speak as I am speaking here today will result in having my digital ID and digital currency turned off for misinformation. The ALP, globalists, the Liberals and the Greens are promoting this dystopian future, coveting the power that comes with it. One Nation stands strongly opposed. The choice for voters is clear. 

/3 Comments/by

Hands Off Our Coffee!

The elitists at Davos love to chat about restricting travel while comparing the private jets they flew in on. They push EVs, yet the Davos limos are fuel powered. The forum sessions openly plot to reduce animal farming and fishing, yet they dine on the finest steak and seafood.

Where do we draw the line?

Over coffee, these Davos speakers discussed guilt-tripping the masses about coffee’s CO2 emissions.

Would you let the WEF take away your coffee? It’s all part of the plan to make you feel guilty for existing and change purchases to products owned by the WEF-connected billionaires.

Reject the CO2 Climate scam. One Nation is hugely pro-human and anti-WEF.

/7 Comments/by

World Economic Forum – Their Time is Up!

Kevin Roberts’ message to the self-appointed global elitists at Davos adds further emphasis to Javier Milei’s speech.

/3 Comments/by

World Economic Forum (Davos 2024) – “Rebuilding Trust”

It’s incredible — when the globalists at Davos say “rebuild trust” what they mean is suppress dissenting views and opinions that are based on facts and data. What the WEF calls misinformation or disinformation is just information not aligned with the propaganda machine that’s being used for power and control on a massive scale.

The head of the EU, Ursula von der Leyen, says that the global business community faces a great threat that requires swift and immediate action. That threat is bigger than wars or climate.

Resistance is growing. Many are waking up fast. Is 2024 the year of uncovering the truth?

/8 Comments/by

Argentinian President Delivers a Few Home Truths at Davos

Javier Milei speaks frankly at the WEF in Davos.

This speech criticising socialism by the libertarian leader is well worth your time listening to.

/14 Comments/by