These Appropriation Bills allocates an additional $9 billion in spending for the current financial year, with roughly one-third ($2.9 billion) directed toward “net zero” measures.
This Labor government is using an accounting trick by borrowing money and on-lending it, keeping $33 billion in “off-the-books” expenditure out of the formal budget deficit. This money will result in financial losses. If these projects were viable, private enterprise would be funding them.
Net-Zero infrastructure (solar panels, wind turbines, batteries) has short lifespans, requiring multiple replacements before 2050 and 2060, incurring massive, overlooked installation, maintenance and disposal/ remediation.
Unlike the mining industry, “renewable” energy projects cause permanent environmental damage to landscapes without requiring environmental bonds for remediation.
Independent groups like Net Zero Australia and Bloomberg estimates that the total economic cost of the transition ranges from trillions of dollars up to $9 trillion, while asserting that government spending on net zero has surged by 400% between 2022 and 2026.
Transcript
In accordance with the arrangements made with the whips of the major parties, I seek leave to continue my remarks, and I express my regret that I wasn’t here at the start of the debate.
Leave granted.
I’ll continue my speech from the other night. Decarbonisation now extends right through the bureaucracy and agencies. There are decarbonisation offices in every government department, plus the net zero reporting, government grants to industry and academia to research this made-up problem. It really is a fabricated nonproblem; a monstrous, calamitous fabrication that is costing the Australian people dearly. Some of these grants are substantial, including $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Authority to counter the effects of climate change. I’ll talk more about that in a minute. The further we get into the pointless, disastrous ‘transition’, the more that the burden of funding of these measures will fall on the taxpayer through direct payments, loans and sovereign guarantees, not to mention the inefficiencies—sorry, Siri is trying to talk to me.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Neill): Siri doesn’t have the call, Senator Roberts!
I’ll pay that one!
Senator Cox: You were caught out at estimates doing that. Come on, now.
Senator McKim interjecting—
You’ve got a fertile imagination. Conspiracy theorist, is it? These measures will cost so much in the years ahead that, ultimately, the government of the day will be faced with a choice of social security, free health and education or saving the planet from a natural trace atmospheric gas that’s essential to all life on earth. One Nation does not worship the sky god of warming. We know the climate varies naturally and inherently and that nothing in the current data suggests the variation is outside of normal cycles.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
We have 24,000 datasets from around the world, including CSIRO and BOM, and they prove no change in climate at all, just natural, inherent variation superimposed on cycles. A One Nation government will terminate net zero measures and withdraw from international agreements which provide the heads of power the requirement on our government to spend this money—not necessary. We will immediately suspend all government activity associated with net zero and review all expenditure and loans to see what can be clawed back legitimately under the contract terms. I suspect noncompliance with contract requirements—especially around supply agreements—is widespread, so it shouldn’t be too difficult. We will terminate all ongoing subsidies where that option is available under the contract, and we will renegotiate contracts where it’s not. This will save around $10 billion a year in recurring expenditure, which we will put towards eliminating the deficit—$10 billion taken out of this year’s budget figures.
I foreshadow my amendment No. 3662 in the committee stage to return these bills to the Treasury to have net zero spending removed and ask for the Senate’s support. It’s time to call out this parasitic net zero nonsense and get back to the real business of government: making people’s lives better, not harder, as net zero measures currently do.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you resume your seat, Senator Roberts, it would assist the Senate if you would move your motion. I believe it has been circulated as a second reading amendment.
I move:
Omit all words after “That”, substitute “further consideration of the bills be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after amendments are circulated removing all funding for net zero measures and the administration of net zero measures”.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/cRxZeI8kgXc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-11-05 20:35:302026-11-05 20:35:36Billions on the Line for Net Zero
Prompted by a glossy, heavily illustrated 57-page clean energy report for the Wide Bay-Burnett region that could easily have been a 10-page document, I questioned department officials regarding its substance and design.
I asked for the exact cost of this publication, whether similar reports were produced for other regions across Australia and what the cost-benefit analysis was for printing such a marketing document. I also questioned the total marketing spend of the regional development agency for the 2025-26 financial year.
Highlighting the accompanying letter’s call to advocate for a clean energy transition, I expressed my view that the brochure is nothing more than taxpayer-funded government propaganda filled with misinformation.
Minister Chisholm disagreed with my opinion and defended the government’s support for renewable energy and community engagement.
This Labor government is persisting with squandering billions of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a pipe dream, trying to “trick” people into believing that an unreliable net-zerorenewable energy transition is somehow going to control the weather.
They label any dissenting view as “misinformation” ignoring the fact that the worst offenders of climate alarmism and energy fear-mongering are in the Labor and Greens parties.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have the regional development agency, please?
Ms Rauter: They are not part of the department. The regional development authorities, do you mean?
Senator ROBERTS: Regional development agencies: outcome 3.
Ms Rauter: We are outcome 3. How about you ask your question, and I will see whether we can answer it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This glossy brochure—
Senator Chisholm: Is that from the RDA—Regional Development Australia?
Senator ROBERTS: Regional Development Australia, yes.
Ms Rauter: They are government funded authorities, but they are not part of the department. We would have to take the question on notice and direct it to the RDAs.
Senator ROBERTS: Tell me what you can answer of these questions and put on notice what you can’t. This glossy brochure was posted out in January. I received a copy, as I am sure other senators did. It’s the Industry engagement report: industry perspectives on the path to clean energy. It is for the Wide Bay-Burnett region. Wide Bay is in Queensland. We are very keen to know. I care about the people in Wide Bay Burnett. This publication is 57 pages of full-page illustrations and white space. Distilling the actual information here, it would come to about a 10-page publication. How much did this publication cost? You can take it on notice.
Ms Rauter: Yes, we would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Secondly, was this publication required by an act of parliament? Why was it even produced?
Ms Rauter: No, it is not required by an act of parliament. We do fund the Regional Development Australia organisations, which are across Australia, to work with local government, councils and others, on the regional investment framework and to make sure that that is delivered in the regions. They also support regional stakeholders, including the not-for-profit sector and local government, to seek grant opportunities. They support decarbonisation efforts that are happening in the regional areas. They build evidence for economic development. They contribute relevant data and local intelligence. We don’t require them to produce that publication, but we can certainly ask them what the process is for them going into that, and the cost.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are they doing this same exercise in other regions around Australia? My question is: how many more of these publications exist?
Ms Rauter: Again, we will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it just Wide Bay, where there has been a huge, justifiable backlash on solar and wind? You can take that question on notice.
Ms Rauter: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain to me the cost benefit of this publication being produced as a glossy brochure instead of a simple emailed PDF?
Ms Rauter: That would be a question for the RDA, specifically. We will pass that on.
Senator ROBERTS: How much did the regional development agency spend on marketing in the 2025-26 financial year? I count this as marketing.
Ms Rauter: Yes, I understand that.
Senator ROBERTS: How does the carbon dioxide footprint manage to be factored into every Infrastructure Australia application, although the department can chop down trees for this nonsense propaganda? Where is the consistency in the management of your department, Minister?
Senator Chisholm: I don’t really know that we’re responsible for that.
Senator ROBERTS: I quote from the letter that accompanied the glossy propaganda brochure: We are seeking your support to advocate for a regional clean energy transition strategy. Then they go on and name five points, including many points of misinformation. Isn’t this just propaganda from people in a region strongly opposed to solar and wind and its environmental destruction, community destruction and economic destruction, Minister? This confirms that the biggest source of misinformation and disinformation is the government, yet again.
Senator Chisholm: It would be fair to say that I disagree with you on that basis, Senator Roberts. I am supportive of renewable energy projects. I come across many people in the community who are as well. I make the point that those things are best done when there is strong community engagement with the proponents. I see evidence in many places around the country that that is happening. I think that the work of the federal government and various state governments around the place is leading to better outcomes. Councils play an important role in that.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t bother you that it is crammed with misinformation and disinformation?
Senator Chisholm: I haven’t actually seen the document that you’re talking about, Senator Roberts. I think it would be fair to say, being someone who has observed the way that you have operated in the chamber and in Senate committees over the years, we probably have a different point of view on some of these matters.
Senator ROBERTS: We certainly do. Ms Rauter, thank you so much for stepping forward. It is appreciated. I am not holding you accountable for this, just the regional development agencies. Thank you.
Ms Rauter: Not a problem, Senator.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. That’s a nice way to finish.
These questions pertain to the GenCost 2025–26 consultation draft, a collaborative report used to estimate the cheapest levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for various energy technologies.
This report assigns shorter financial lifespans to baseload and firming technologies (30 years for coal, nuclear, and hydro) compared to their physical capabilities, which artificially inflates their per-megawatt-hour costs while favouring wind and solar.
The report incorrectly excludes brownfield site advantages for coal and nuclear generation, putting them at an unfair cost disadvantage against greenfield wind and solar.
And battery backup costs are separated rather than bundled directly into wind and solar expenses, masking their true total cost.
I asked whether the government had directed agencies to produce “fraudulent costings” to support net-zero targets, an assertion strongly rejected by the officials and Senator Tim Ayres.
Dr Mayfield from the CSIRO defended the GenCost methodology as a consistent, independent and robust process developed in consultation with industry and technical experts. Because he didn’t have the specific draft on hand, Dr Mayfield took detailed questions regarding capacity factors, exact asset valuations and cost adjustments on notice.
Senator Ayres strongly defended the government’s energy transition, dismissing my position on this as “imported talking points.” He argued that the GenCost framework reflects modern economic, engineering and technological realities, such as falling battery costs and said that attempting to revive old baseload models would weaken the economy, driving up costs.
One Nation will scrap Australia’s Net Zero by 2050 policy target along with all associated legislation, mandates and subsidies. We will withdraw from all international climate commitments like the Paris Agreement and back cheap base-load energy sources like coal, gas, hydro and nuclear energy.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’d like to go to your GenCost 2025-26 consultation draft. The purpose of GenCost is to show the different costs of each type of generation when all factors are taken into account—in essence, industrial wind and solar as compared to nuclear, coal and hydro. Do you think the assumptions made in this report around assessment periods for each type of power are conducive to producing an accurate cost of full life cycle generation?
Dr Mayfield: The latest consultation draft—so our final report—is not out at this point in time—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I meant the consultation draft.
Dr Mayfield: It is the same methodology, as we’ve discussed many, many times—so, yes, we think it’s an appropriate methodology that’s being applied.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the most common uses of this report is to show Australians, the media and the government which is supposedly the cheapest levelised cost of electricity. This in turn informs the debate around which type of generation is cheapest and accordingly should be the focus of the government’s energy plans. Does this draft report make the right assumptions in the economic life of each type of generation?
Dr Mayfield: We’ve been through various assumptions; if you want to be explicit about some, that might help. We’ve talked about coal-fired power in the past. The assumptions that we have been using either are based on work that sits with AEMO or come out of the consultation process done with industry representatives as we develop the report.
Senator ROBERTS: Your answer is yes?
Dr Mayfield: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The life of the project makes a huge difference to the cost of the electricity it puts into the grid. Coal, nuclear and hydro have higher construction costs than wind or solar. They also last much longer than wind and solar, so the higher cost can be repaid across a much longer period, which makes a huge difference to the final cost of electricity. Your draft sets the life span of coal, nuclear and hydropower stations at 30 years, with industrial wind and solar at 25 years. That’s the absolute limit of cheap Chinese solar and wind installations. I would call 25 years fanciful, based upon what’s happening around the world. This draft appraises coal, hydro and nuclear over less than half their life. Wind and solar are appraised over their entire life. Can you explain that to me, please?
Dr Mayfield: If you go back to previous estimates, Mr Graham has explained all those assumptions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you to explain it. This is the latest draft.
Dr Mayfield: I will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got the answer here?
Dr Mayfield: I haven’t got the draft here with me, but I’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Coal power stations last 50 years, which the draft acknowledges before using the shorter figure anyway. You show hydro at 100 years but use 30 years anyway. You show nuclear at up to 80 years but use 30 years anyway. You are saying the decision has been taken based on the financial decision-making, which is based on risk mitigation. It’s an unrelated metric to the actual cost of building out these power stations and makes coal, hydro and nuclear artificially more expensive. Is your argument simply designed to inflate the cost of baseload power and reduce the cost of wind and solar?
Dr Mayfield: We’re technology agnostic. The assumptions are consistent across all the technologies. You’ll appreciate there’s reinvestment required during the lifetimes of all of those technologies, in various aspects. They’ve been done on a consistent basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Wind and solar reinvestment—you’re absolutely right—is after about 20 years; let’s go with 25. Coal is after 50 to 60 years, nuclear is after 60 years and hydro is after 100 years. Snowy Hydro has been going how many years—80-odd?
Dr Mayfield: You’ll have to reinvest in turbines during that time.
Senator ROBERTS: Turbines. Snowy.
Senator Ayres: All these technologies require reinvestment.
Senator ROBERTS: Not completely—
Senator Ayres: That’s not new news.
Senator ROBERTS: Maintenance is not replacement of capital.
Senator Ayres: It’s the same old argument. You don’t like the numbers provided by Australia’s experts; I understand that. There’s nothing credible about the approach that you bring to these questions. We’ll endure the same imported talking points again. Go through it; we’ll do our best to answer the questions. You will find that Dr Mayfield and others will have to refer you back to the same answers to the same questions that you insist on asking. I know you don’t like the result, but that’s science, that’s engineering and that’s economics right there.
Senator ROBERTS: And I’m all about protecting the taxpayer and the Australian citizen.
Senator Ayres: Sure. There’s not much evidence of that either!
Senator ROBERTS: In any event, your assumptions are still wrong. Nuclear is being financed over 15 years to 20 years, hydro over 15—which is crazy for a 100-year asset—and coal is under 10 years. If this was to try and make GenCost accurate, you’ve failed. Your basic assumption of the life of the asset is wrong from a financial perspective, and it’s certainly wrong from a reality perspective. Why are you making such a fundamental mistake repeatedly?
Dr Mayfield: If you can put your questions to us, I’ll take them on notice and let the experts answer those.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got it. If a One Nation government were to issue 50-year infrastructure bonds or ones for a shorter period with a rollover option to fund nuclear, coal and hydro, what would that do to your report assumptions? You would have no reason to use the life-of-project figure you use, and you would then have to use the real life one. The government issuing financing in return for owning the generation would completely ruin this core assumption of GenCost, wouldn’t it?
Senator Ayres: In the event that there was a ‘One Nation Liberal National’ uniparty government—
Senator ROBERTS: I said a One Nation government.
Senator Ayres: then you would bankrupt Australia with that kind of approach. You would drive manufacturing offshore. You would make us weaker and less secure. I know that doesn’t suit the imported talking points that you insist on running through. It’s a matter for you if you want to indulge that kind of perspective, but we are dealing with the real issues in a real economy for real firms—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what worries me.
Senator Ayres: and real generation. You are in an imaginarium of your own making.
Senator ROBERTS: If a One Nation government chose to fund the construction from consolidated revenue and own the generation, that would destroy your core GenCost assumption, wouldn’t it?
Senator Ayres: You would bankrupt the government as well as the economy in that instance, Senator. You’ve got the right to put out the funny dodges and all that sort of stuff that you guys do—that’s fine. We’re going to deal with the real things in the real economy.
Senator ROBERTS: The draft GenCost figures are large-scale solar photovoltaic, $52 to $88 per megawatt hour; onshore wind, $78 to $129 per megawatt hour; black coal, $121 to $195 per megawatt hour; large-scale nuclear, $200 to $328 per megawatt hour. The capacity factor here is important. The more power that’s generated out of the nameplate capacity, the cheaper the power. What reliability figure have you used in the lower range and higher range figure for coal and nuclear?
Dr Mayfield: I’ll take that on notice and refer you back to previous answers. We’ll get the experts to give you detailed answers to your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Did the experts produce this?
Dr Mayfield: The techno-economic people that we employ have produced that report in conjunction consultation with industry and with guidance through that process. It’s a well-used process. We think it’s a very robust process. We’re very happy to provide those answers on notice. We’ve provided many of them already.
Senator ROBERTS: What capacity figure have you used in the lower and higher range for large-scale photovoltaic and onshore wind?
Dr Mayfield: I’ll take that on notice again. I don’t have the report with me today.
Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to your answers, On notice, please, what change would assessing project life for coal at 50 years, nuclear at 60 years and hydro at 80 years have on your draft levelised cost of electricity?
Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ll take that all on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re getting through this pretty quickly, CHAIR. Coal power stations would likely go into a brownfield site, or the existing generation would be replaced with modern clean generation with higher capacity. This reduces the cost, whereas wind and solar are all greenfield—the highest cost—especially to the environment. Senator Whish-Wilson has been trying to shut down the Robbins Island wind turbines! Why have you removed the issue of brownfield versus greenfield from the calculation? It makes coal and nuclear look artificially bad, doesn’t it?
Dr Mayfield: The whole basis of the GenCost report is to look at greenfield, new generation, costs; it’s not looking at brownfield.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t consider brownfield at all?
Dr Mayfield: Not for GenCost—not for the purposes that AEMO are looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Battery—
CHAIR: Senator, you’re at 10 minutes.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just got two more.
CHAIR: Okay.
Senator ROBERTS: Battery backup is shown as a separate levelised cost of electricity. It’s only needed to firm wind and solar, so it should be shown against the cost of wind and solar. Showing it separately will produce a misleading, much lower, figure for the cost of wind and solar. Why have you chosen this misrepresentation— omitted the cost of battery backup to make wind and solar look cheaper?
Dr Mayfield: Again, I’ll take it on notice. We’ll get the experts to give you detailed answers to your questions. As I said before, it’s a robust process. We’ve provided many of those answers before.
Senator ROBERTS: Transmission lines appear to be included against wind and solar. Can you provide the annual cost here? What appears to be a $10 per megawatt hour charge would factor in how much in transmission line construction and maintenance? And will it be enough?
Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ll take that on notice and provide you with a detailed answer.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you received any instruction or direction from the government to produce fraudulent costings to justify the net zero agenda? Yes or no? It’s a simple question.
Dr Mayfield: I don’t agree with the premise of that question at all.
Senator Ayres: Senator, I can assure you this is an independent process that is robust—and it deals with the with the technology changes, and the lowest possible cost of electricity. Battery costs, for example, have fallen by 91 per cent since the 1990s—that’s the truth of it. Now, you want to take the country back to a sort of weaker, more expensive system? Really! We’re trying to build a modern electricity system. You want to put people back in the caves, basically.
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Ayres, are you not aware that Australia had the cheapest—
Senator Ayres: We are getting—
Senator ROBERTS: coal-fired power station in the world?
Senator Ayres: In the olden days, Senator—in the olden days—
Senator ROBERTS: And we’re now amongst the highest in the world—
Senator Ayres: when it was the only—
Senator ROBERTS: with solar and wind?
Senator Ayres: technology that—
Senator ROBERTS: Are you not aware of that?
Senator Ayres: was available for Australia—
Senator ROBERTS: These are basic things for manufacturing.
Senator Ayres: And, back in its day, coal was terrific—it was terrific. But the world has changed and technology has changed. These are lower cost, for a good environmental outcome. They are lower cost and they will make Australian industry more efficient. Our job, as electricity use expands, is to provide addition into the system and build a modern system. You want to take the joint backwards? Make that case. Go your hardest!
Senator ROBERTS: China burns more than 53 per cent of the world’s coal consumption every year, and manufacturing is going to China.
Senator Ayres: If you want to argue that Australia should go backwards—
Senator ROBERTS: Manufacturing is going to China.
Senator Ayres: and get weaker and poorer—which is the outcome of your kinds of policy prescriptions: less secure, weaker and poorer—then go for your life! But you’ll get the same answers from experts—
Senator ROBERTS: You’re taking us backwards on standard of living already.
Senator Ayres: and from proper, robust processes.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have any more questions?
Why is the Labor government deceiving Australians by claiming electricity prices are falling when the reality is that electricity bills are RISING?
I pointed to the facts.
Connection charges have surged from 26 cents a day to as much as $1.46 a day over the past decade, adding around $530 a year to household power bills.
Solar feed-in tariffs have fallen to as little as 5 to 15 cents per kilowatt hour, while households are being charged 25 to 45 cents per kilowatt hour for the electricity they buy from the grid.
Australians with rooftop solar are getting less for the power they generate while paying more in fixed charges and connection fees.
When I asked why Australians are being told electricity prices are falling while their bills keep rising, the government did what it does best – blame someone else and avoid the question.
Australians don’t care about Labor’s talking points. They care about what leaves their bank account every quarter.
If electricity is supposedly getting cheaper, why are Australians paying more?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. In the early 2000s, electricity companies were allowed to charge a special solar metre fee to customers with home solar. Over time, it morphed into a daily connection fee. In 2025, the Australian Energy Regulator reduced electricity charges, and energy companies responded, increasing the connection fee—in one case, up from 26c a day 10 years ago to $1.46 a day, $530 a year, 15 times the inflation rate. Minister, are the energy companies profiteering, or is your government trying to hide the real cost of electricity?
Senator Watt interjecting —
Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science): I was giving some thought to that as I got up, actually, Senator Watt. The idea that you would, as the minister for energy, conceal from Australians anticipated price rises in electricity that you had been provided and that you would make all sorts of administrative arrangements to cover that up until after an election—that dubious honour only belongs to one bloke. I can tell you he’s not a comedian, this fella, Mr Taylor, from the other place, who was the minister for energy under the Morrison government. He did share that honour with Mr Morrison for a period. You asked you asked about concealing—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: On a point of relevance, I asked about the current government’s policy, not someone else in the lower house.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll draw the minister back to your question.
Senator AYRES: If there’s anything we can provide you in addition to that answer in relation to the relationship between connection fees—these things are very clear. We have just provided, for example, starting yesterday, three free hours of solar power, which are required to be produced for the 455,000 Australians who have solar panels on their roofs and have now got a home battery, who will pay zero in electricity costs because of the support of this government. These are not people in inner-city suburbs, I can tell you, but, overwhelmingly, people in the outer suburbs and in the regions of Australia, who are benefiting from low or zero cost and delivering benefit to the rest of the electricity system. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Electricity feed-in tariffs—the price energy companies pay people for rooftop solar electricity fed into the grid—have fallen. Retailers pay 5c to 15c per kilowatt hour on new contracts while charging 25c to 45c for additional power plus $530 a year just for connection. Minister, did you deceive Australians into installing rooftop solar to save money when the benefit is being ripped away in increased connection charges and reduced feed-in tariffs?
Senator AYRES: Senator, I know that One Nation doesn’t like solar electricity. I know. Australians have benefited from this. Many, many households, pensioners and working Australians are benefiting from having solar on their home. Many hundreds of thousands of households are benefiting from batteries. Now, I know you don’t like it. I know One Nation doesn’t like it. I know you’ve led the National Party into not liking it—they don’t like it any more—and, of course, dragged the Liberal Party into this far-right vortex and into taking wilder and wilder positions that have got nothing to do with the experience of suburban and regional Australians who have benefited from solar on their roofs, benefited from batteries in their homes, benefited— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is your government deceiving everyday Australians, telling them electricity prices are falling when, owing to connection fees, electricity bills are actually rising and rising quickly?
Senator AYRES: It will be a source of disappointment. Every time Australia succeeds, it’s a source of heartache and misery over there, isn’t it? You feel sad when Australia does well.
We are making progress. There are 22 gigawatts of new generation capacity in the grid. Default market offer shows that the Albanese government’s work in this area, after a decade of disinvestment and decay in the electricity system—it was utterly irresponsible, what Mr Taylor did. He wrecked our fuel refineries. He wrecked our electricity system—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts on a point of order?
Senator Roberts: It is on relevance. Why are electricity bills rising? I didn’t ask about someone in the lower house.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will draw the minister back to your question.
Senator AYRES: He wrecked our electricity system, wrecked our fuel refineries, didn’t invest in transmission—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Ayres.
Senator AYRES: and did more to damage Australian energy security—
During Question Time, I asked Finance Minister Katy Gallagher for the real bottom line on Snowy Hydro 2.0.
Not just the construction cost. I asked for the true total to taxpayers: interest on the debt, transmission lines, endless maintenance, and the required wind and solar replacements.
The response? Labor admits they don’t even know how much it will cost or when it will be finished. A recent ANAO audit confirmed there is no reliable system to track future costs, no completion baseline, and no quality data.
Originally pitched as a $2 billion project, it’s already blown out to $42 billion — and that’s just a fraction of the final bill. When you factor in the full life cycle costs and the massive grid overhauls needed, taxpayers are staring down at $100 billion plus in costs for a project that will lose money every year, and provide a tiny amount of electricity at a totally unaffordable price.
Yet, Labor refuses to cancel it.
Reliable, low-cost clean coal power stations could secure our energy grid today without bankrupting the nation, however Labor remain fixated on Net Zero at all costs and hardworking Australians are paying the price.
It’s time to stop the waste and put cheap, reliable power first.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, regarding the cost to taxpayers of the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme. Minister, can you inform the Senate how much Snowy Hydro 2.0 will cost to complete, including cost of construction; capital costs through to the end of the financing cycle, meaning interest on the debt; maintenance through the same period; the cost of transmission lines dedicated to this project, including maintenance; and, finally, the industrial wind and solar installations, including cyclical replacement, needed to generate the power? In short, if it’s built and it’s paid off, how much all up is this thing going to cost?
Senator Gallagher: I’m happy to update the chamber with the information that I have available to me on Snowy 2.0. I think you’ll remember that, when we came to government, we inherited a project that was having significant difficulties. If you remember, I think former prime minister Turnbull announced this project and said it would cost $2 billion. It had not had a business case done. There had been no scoping done. There had been no surveys done of the geological environment that the project was going to be built in, and so there was a significant reset probably in the first couple of years of our government, and that increased the project total cost to in the order of $12 billion. Currently, the Snowy board is undertaking a cost reassessment for the total project cost. We have not received that work yet. It is due to the government towards the end of July. I would say that Snowy 2.0 is more than half built. It is an important project for the nation in terms of the security and stability of our energy grid. It is an important project, but, as to any further reassessment of the costs, the information that I have are the ones where we took that initial reset to properly scope the project, get it back on track and work with the organisation to deliver the project when it was raised to $12 billion.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian National Audit Office audit released this month found significant shortcomings, including no reliable system to track future costs, no base line for project completion and no quality data with which to work these things out. In short, we don’t know how long it’s going to take and how much it’s going to cost. Just like the uniparty’s net zero, there’s no plan. Minister, will you cancel this project?
Senator Gallagher: No, the government will not do that. As I said, it is an important project. I think I saw a figure that said it was 72 per cent complete, but I will correct that if I am wrong. I can’t find that number in front of me, but I was reading some documents about Snowy Hydro on the weekend. In relation to the ANAO report—I should say this because you didn’t—it did say that the management of the project has been partially effective and there were, I think, five or so recommendations which outlined deficiencies in some project governance arrangements. Snowy 2.0 has accepted, I think, the vast majority of those recommendations. It is an important project for the stability and security of our energy system. It’s an important project to get done, but it has been a troubled project from the beginning, including when it was so poorly implemented initially by those opposite.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Labor appears to be upset about Senator Whitten signing a contract to sell his shares in September 2023, almost two years before his Senate nomination. Minister, at what point do you accept that a clean coal power station provides cheaper power, much more of it, than this fantasy project costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps a trillion, before it’s paid off? When will you give up this fantasy?
Senator Gallagher: Again, Senator Roberts, this project is important for the security and stability of the energy grid. In relation to coal-fired power stations, there have been none built in this country for decades, and, indeed, under the former government, I think there was $3 million allocated to Collinsville to explore that. I don’t know what happened to that and where that project ended, but we heard nothing from it. The market is not building new coal-fired power stations. They’re not. If they were able to deliver the energy that you say they would be able to do in a way that you want them to do, the market would be investing in them. They’re not. The market is investing in renewables because it delivers cheaper and more reliable energy. We’ve seen that, indeed, in some announcements that Minister Bowen has made in recent times about the wholesale price of electricity coming down because of the amount of renewables in the system.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/prBzMouEYrc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-20 10:11:442026-08-20 10:54:48Clean Coal vs. Snowy Hydro: Which One Makes Sense?
During this Estimates hearing back in February I questioned Dennis Barnes, the CEO of the infamous Snowy Hydro 2.0 that’s estimated to cost taxpayers $12 billion … for now.
This project began without a transparent business case and is currently locked into an anti-competitive contractor structure whilst relying on a cost-plus model that leaves taxpayers carrying the blowouts.
Add years of delays, poor early planning, and constant political blame-shifting, and the project looks less like nation-building and more like a multibillion dollar waste of taxpayer money.
Despite the project’s spiralling costs and repeated failures, the government continues to shift blame rather than accept responsibility.
Barnaby Joyce has openly acknowledged his mistake, yet those overseeing Snowy Hydro 2.0 refuse to show the same accountability.
And it’s you. The Australian taxpayers, that are expected to foot the bill.
One Nation says: it’s time to cut our losses on this white elephant and get back to what works – cheap base-load energy.
Transcript
CHAIR: Thank you. I’ll give the call to Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. Good evening, Mr Barnes.
Mr Barnes: Good evening.
Senator ROBERTS: Your principal contractor is FGJV, Future Generation Joint Venture, which is three companies: Webuild, Clough and Lane Construction. Webuild as an Italian company who has across the construction arc of Snowy Hydro bought out Clough and Lane Constructions, so the joint venture is Webuild, Webuild and Webuild. Is that correct?
Mr Barnes: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s significant because one arm of Webuild is unlikely to find fault or offer a cheaper option than another arm of Webuild. They really have this project in their grip, don’t they?
Mr Barnes: We have a principal contractor called Future Generation Joint Venture. That joint venture was chosen through a competitive process before my time. Circumstances meant that Clough, who went into receivership, I believe, in 2022, was acquired by Webuild at that time. The contractual counterparty for Snowy Hydro has not changed.
Senator ROBERTS: So who’s the contractual partner?
Mr Barnes: Future Generation Joint Venture.
Senator ROBERTS: Which is Webuild, Webuild, Webuild.
Mr Barnes: There are three Webuild subsidiaries.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. So the current contract with Webuild uses an incentivised target cost model, also called a cost-plus margin. Is that correct?
Mr Barnes: The important part is the incentivised bit. There are elements of the project which are more complex and challenging, which are on a cost-recovery basis, but is a large proportion of the contract where the contractor Future Generation Joint Venture is incentivised to do a better job on time, on cost, and, if they don’t, then they suffer some penalties.
Senator ROBERTS: But, essentially, it’s cost-plus margin.
Mr Barnes: Elements of it are cost-plus margin; elements of it are incentivised target costs, where the contractor is incentivised to deliver the lowest cost and fastest outcome, and, if they don’t, then they incur penalties.
Senator ROBERTS: Being cost-plus, the higher the cost, the more money the contractor makes through the plus margin part.
Mr Barnes: There is a series of triggers and caps within the contract which mean that the contractor doesn’t continue to earn as the cost of the project increases. In fact, the recovery from the contractor means their return goes down.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you use external auditors to ensure every cost is legit?
Mr Barnes: We have a monthly process conducted by Ernst & Young, who go through every line item and every subcontractor payment and assure those to us.
Senator ROBERTS: So they’re external auditors?
Mr Barnes: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: This question might actually be good news. How many apprentices and trainees are working on Snowy Hydro? I understand you have a school based apprenticeships and traineeships program.
Mr Barnes: I think the round number—and we can provide the detail on Snowy Hydro as opposed to Snowy 2—is more than 40 people in what we call development programs. That include apprentices, vacation students and graduates—across that spectrum. We can provide the detail. We do produce a report each year with that input. We’re happy to provide that.
Senator ROBERTS: One Nation believes very much in apprenticeships. They used to be a fantastic system, and they’ve been peeled off.
Mr Barnes: I’m a product of an apprenticeship myself, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. Minister, without reflecting on the performance of Mr Barnes, who is making good progress, you understand that the taxpayers are annoyed that the cost just keeps going up and up under the current model. It started without an open business case or cost-benefit analysis. Costs will continue to go up through 2028. Is that correct?
Senator Ayres: Yes. I think this was a project that commenced under the—
Senator ROBERTS: Turnbull government.
Senator Ayres: Turnbull government, when Mr Joyce was the deputy prime minister. Mr Joyce and that government announced the program. It’s a little bit like some of the dam projects that Mr Joyce constantly talks about. I think he said he was going to deliver 100 dams during the life of the Abbott-Morrison-Turnbull catastrophe—and delivered one.
Senator ROBERTS: Which one was that?
Senator Ayres: I don’t know, but one out of 100—one per cent. A lot of talk, not much water.
Senator ROBERTS: He found it very frustrating, didn’t he?
Senator Ayres: Well, he wasn’t much good. The assessment that was made on Snowy 2.0 was that the cost escalation was partly due to what was described as design immaturity at final investment decision and site conditions and geology, which should have been known at the time. Unlike Mr Joyce and Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor—all these characters—we haven’t covered up—
Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t mentioned Sussan Ley.
Senator Ayres: I’m only pointing at the people who are responsible. I don’t know about—maybe, maybe; certainly Mr Joyce is at the heart of this free-wheeling catastrophe. We haven’t covered up the costs, and we haven’t covered up the delays. What we, as a government, have done is work with Mr Barnes and the team to make sure that this nation-building project gets back on track. It is an important project for our future energy security. Despite the damage of a ham-fisted start, with a focus on announcements and the sort of approach that was taken by Mr Joyce and his colleagues, we are working hard. The project is now 70 per cent complete. It’s still got some quite substantial work to go. You are right to point to work that has been done by Snowy and contractors in terms of apprenticeships. That’s a good contribution. We’re very focused on this project proceeding as quickly as possible in as low cost a way as possible but transparently. We don’t think good public policy is supported by deliberately concealing facts about important national projects like this.
Senator ROBERTS: It did bother me that Prime Minister Turnbull at the time heavily redacted the business case. That certainly did bother me because I wasn’t in favour of it at the start. But its cost has gone from roughly $2 billion, I think, to about $20 billion.
Senator Ayres: I might go to Mr Barnes on the cost questions because I think we should be precise. The cost has escalated significantly, but let’s have some precision.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had a lot of imprecisions in the past. Is it worth continuing?
Mr Barnes: The cost approval that was budgeted was $5.9 billion, and the project reset that we concluded in 2023 was $12 billion.
Senator Ayres: I thought the figure was closer to $12 billion than $20 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: With all the extra transmission lines and all the ancillaries?
Senator Ayres: Yes, well these are nation-building projects that are required to deliver an electricity system. I agree with Mr Joyce 1.0, not 2.0 or whatever version he is now. In 2020, he said: The Federal Government has delivered millions of dollars of investment already for renewable energy generation right here on our doorstep in places like Inverell and Glen Innes. He then went on to say: We’ve made massive investments in the New England into renewable energy— I’m passionate about this because it’s where I come from. We’ve made massive investments in the New England into renewable energy, in fact we’re one of the biggest renewable energy hubs in Australia. Just like the Inland Rail, others talked about it for years and I made sure it happened.
Senator ROBERTS: And he now has the courage to admit his folly.
Senator Ayres: In 2021, he then went on to say, ‘In the long term, we understand that there may be a transition to other fuel sources, and we’ve got to make sure that we’re also part of that transition,’ something his constituents agree with. In 2017, he said: With other projects like the Sapphire Wind Farm going ahead— and here he is backing in a wind farm that he was cutting the ribbon at, extolling the virtues of this very important development—
Senator ROBERTS: And he’s had the courage to recognise he was wrong.
Senator Ayres: He said: With other projects like the Sapphire Wind Farm going ahead, it also shows that the New England is leading the way in renewable energy production and I will continue to advocate for the region as a growing power supplier for Australia. Before his decline to where he’s got to now, he said some quite commonsense things, this bloke.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, at least he’s got the strength of character to admit he was wrong.
Senator Ayres: He’s a long way away from common sense now.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s something that you haven’t done, despite the rising cost of electricity.
Senator Ayres: He’s a long way away from common sense now.
CHAIR: Senators, thank you for that exchange. Senator Roberts, I will have to wind you up.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/t22LKdNqnqo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-06 12:42:582026-07-06 12:43:02Snowy 2.0: A Masterclass in Government Failure
This exchange is about the Australian Border Force’s (ABF) response to asbestos found in the lift brake pads of imported wind turbines.
Mr Reynolds of the ABF explained that after discovering the issue, the ABF “doubled down” on efforts by implementing a specific screening profile to target at-risk shipments. From 1 December to 1 April, 42 matching consignments were intercepted.
35 were cleared via document-based risk assessment; 4 were referred for laboratory testing (all returned negative results), whilst 3 were held pending further documentation.
While Mr Reynolds could not explain how the original contaminated brake pads slipped past the border, he noted that the ABF relies on a combination of self-assessment by importers, risk-based targeting and severe financial penalties to deter illegal imports.
Fines for deliberately importing asbestos without a permit can reach up to $330,000 for individuals and $1.65 million (or 15 times the value of the goods) for companies.
Resolving the issue for contaminated turbines already operating in Australia falls under state government jurisdiction, not federal.
Mr Reynolds took several questions on notice, promising to look into whether the original importers committed a deliberate or accidental offence, whether any fines or prosecutions have been levied against them, and if any current prosecutions are outstanding regarding the operational turbines.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: This is about wind turbines that have been imported into Australia containing asbestos. Now that the asbestos in imported wind turbines has been identified, what’s been done to remedy the problem and prevent recurrence?
Mr Reynolds: The issue was asbestos in the brake pads in lifts inside the wind turbines. What we put in place was what we call a ‘profile’ on the border to look for these products. Between 1 December and 1 April, the Australian Border Force recorded 42 consignments matching against profiles introduced a target asbestos risk because of that wind turbine issue. Of the 42 consignments, 35 were cleared by risk assessment of the documents by ABF officers. The Australian Border Force referred four shipments for laboratory testing. All four returned negative results and were subsequently released. The remaining three consignments are, as of 1 April, held pending provision of further assurance documentation. We’re actively managing that risk on the border.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you actually inspecting the wind turbine brakes when they come in, or is it just done by risk assessment?
Mr Reynolds: It’s both. We’ll make a determination based on that initial risk assessment, and, where required, where we have concerns, then we will refer those for the testing.
Senator ROBERTS: Who does the testing?
Mr Reynolds: I don’t have the name of the laboratory, but it is a nationally recognised laboratory.
Senator ROBERTS: Your officers go to the site where the turbine brakes are stored, pending clearance, and then, if necessary, notify the testers.
Mr Reynolds: What we’ll do is we will provide a direction that that consignment is to be tested. Then the consignment will go to the laboratory to conduct the testing. Depending on the results, we may seize that particular consignment or it will be released.
Senator ROBERTS: How did this problem slip past the Australian Border Force?
Mr Reynolds: Once we became aware of it, we were absolutely onto it. We’ve been testing for asbestos over a number of years. How these particular brake pads made it into the country, I could not tell you. What I can tell you, however, is that for any individual there is a $330,000 fine or three times the value of the goods and for any companies who are deliberately importing asbestos products without a permit it’s a fine of $1.65 million or 15 times the value of the goods. There are significant penalties under the customs regulations for bringing asbestos into the country without a permit.
Senator ROBERTS: An importer of wind turbine brakes could just look at that and say to themselves: ‘What’s the risk assessment involved here? What’s the risk of getting caught?’ If it’s tiny, then it’s worth trying to flout the fines because they won’t get fined. They’ll do a risk assessment the other way.
Mr Reynolds: What I’d offer to you is the fact that we have intervened with 42 consignments which came into the country in that five-month period between 1 December and 1 April. This would indicate that we’re absolutely applying all that we can at the border to look for asbestos coming into the country, including for the wind turbine lift brakes and any other asbestos product.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s subsequent to them coming in without detection and being put into operation. You can’t tell me how that slipped past you. If you can’t tell me how, how do you know that what you’re doing now will get it all? I can understand you can’t possibly inspect every piece of equipment, every good and every item that gets imported by individuals or on major shipments and commercial loads. You have to use some kind of intelligence assessment and a risk assessment. I understand that. Have you changed practices?
Mr Reynolds: Yes, that’s precisely what we have done.
Senator ROBERTS: With the 42?
Mr Reynolds: That’s exactly it. Because we recognised that there clearly were some asbestos products that made it into the country, we doubled down on our efforts to reduce the risk of any asbestos brake pads for wind turbine lifts getting into the country. I think the figures I’ve provided for you demonstrate that we are being effective in getting after it.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m wondering how many other lapses there are, not just wind turbine brakes. Going back to this case: was there an offence committed by the importers or the purchasers by misdescription or omission?
Mr Reynolds: You’d need the details of the importers for those particular lift brake pads, so I don’t have that for you here. I could take it on notice if that would be of assistance.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could please. I’d like to know if it was deliberate or if it was sloppiness on the part of the importer.
Mr Reynolds: Certainly.
Senator ROBERTS: Have all contaminated wind turbines had the problem alleviated, Minister?
Senator Watt: I don’t know that I can give you an across the board answer. I’m not sure whether the commissioner has any further information on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Would that be your responsibility? I would have thought—
Mr Reynolds: It’s a state responsibility to deal with that issue.
Senator ROBERTS: How can I go about finding that out?
Senator Watt: Well, you’ve got some MPs in the South Australian parliament; that might be a good place to start.
Senator ROBERTS: And WA.
Senator Watt: Oh yes; I forgot about that.
Senator ROBERTS: And soon New South Wales.
Senator Watt: I’m not sure they agree with you on fracking and a few other things, but, anyway, that’s another issue.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re always listening to constituents, Senator Watt. We don’t just go blanket.
Senator Watt: ‘Drill, baby, drill’ except in South Australia?
Senator ROBERTS: Except in one electorate.
CHAIR: If we could get back to questions, that would be really helpful.
Senator DUNIAM: This is the entertainment.
CHAIR: No, I am not here for the entertainment.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going through my questions. The commissioner has answered most of them. What penalties or fines have been assessed for identified breaches? You’ve already told me the heftiness of the fines. Have any been levied on the importers in court?
Mr Reynolds: To date, all of the consignments that we have reviewed and have referred for testing have been found not to contain asbestos.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the ones that have been found and were in operation?
Mr Reynolds: I’ll take that on notice and do my best to answer that question for you.
Senator ROBERTS: In general, you’re there to apprehend illegal goods coming in illegally?
Mr Reynolds: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: If they get through the border and are put into operation, who is then responsible for enforcement? Is it someone else or is it you?
Mr Reynolds: We can still apply the Customs Act for goods that have made it through the border.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any prosecutions outstanding?
Mr Reynolds: For asbestos related issues?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Reynolds: Not to my awareness.
Senator ROBERTS: Was anyone prosecuted for the ones that were discovered in operation?
Mr Reynolds: I think that is something that we can take on notice for you.
Senator ROBERTS: The self-assessment of components by the importers is appropriate given your limited workforce and the extent of imports coming into Australia—the extent in terms of not only dollar value but the complexity of things today?
Mr Reynolds: All importers have responsibilities as far as ensuring that they meet the legal requirements for the importation of goods into Australia, but we will conduct compliance checks on any goods over which we have a suspicion that it may be an illicit or prohibited product.
Senator ROBERTS: So your way of protecting the borders, keeping the borders secure is to do inspections. That can’t cover everything, so you use risk assessments, put responsibility on the importers, and then try to protect that with hefty fines if someone is caught to make the cost of criminal or illegal imports prohibitive.
Mr Reynolds: That’s a good summary.
Senator ROBERTS: When I retire I’ll come and get a job with you.
Senator Watt: There’s a merit process, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll pay that one. You were rejected, were you?
Senator Watt: I thought you were going to ask me to be a referee.
While I agree that protecting our natural environment is a duty of government, I completely disagree with Senator Pocock’s definition of “protection.” The rush toward net zero is not saving our environment; it’s state-sponsored vandalism.
Here is the reality of what net zero is doing to Australia:
✖️ Creating unmanaged havens for pests that will devastate native flora and fauna while destroying food production because of “carbon-dioxide farming.”
✖️ 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests will be required to be cleared for wind turbines, 1.25 billion solar panels installed and the carving out of 20,000 kilometres of 75-metre-wide transmission easements through national forests.
✖️ Transmission line costs have blown out from an initial $8.5 billion estimate to upwards of $120 billion, and likely over $200 billion. When you add the generators, the total net zero cost sits at around $350 billion. Financed with high-cost loans over 35 years, this will ultimately burden taxpayers with a bill exceeding $1 trillion.
I have stood in these forests myself. I have seen developers blowing the tops off mountains to install massive concrete turbine bases. Offshore wind is no better. Data shows these marine turbines slow the wind, trap heat at the sea surface, disrupt marine life (including whales) with sediment and noise, shed microplastics and kill birds.
It’s not possible for anyone to look at Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful? No, it’s not. It’s vandalism.
We cannot put the tops back on the mountains that have been destroyed by this insanity.
This is literally killing the environment to save it.
One Nation will protect our beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism.
One Nation is the true party of the environment.
Transcript
One Nation agrees with Senator Pocock that protection of the natural environment is a fundamental duty of any government. I do, though, disagree with Senator Pocock on the definition of environmental protection. ABARES executive director Dr Jared Greenville said last December that research indicates that projected land-based carbon sequestration goals for our net zero transition will require sequestration projects across 18 million hectares by 2050. While some of this land is co-used, agricultural land locked up for carbon credits is not environmental land. Inevitably it becomes a refuge for pests which infect local farms and devastate native fauna and flora. Carbon dioxide farming is the enemy of the natural environment and the enemy of food production.
Add to this total the 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests which are being clear felled for the construction of wind turbines and access roads, plus the land for the 1.25 billion solar panels needed to reach net zero—that’s billion with a ‘b’. Then add the 20,000 kilometres of new transmission lines necessary to take power from where it is being generated to where it is needed. Each transition line runs through an easement, usually 75 metres wide, of clear felled land. In 2020 the AEMO cost estimate for most of the transmission line projects was $8.5 billion. Now the transmission line cost is estimated to be at least $120 billion and is more likely to blow out beyond $200 billion. Add another $160 billion for wind and solar generators and we have a $350 billion net zero cost being financed with high-cost loans, which in turn blows out the total 35-year outlay to above $1 trillion.
For environmentally destructive projects like Snowy 2 and for most of the wind projects in North Queensland, those transmission easements run through forests of national significance. I’ve been there, in the very forests this motion is calling to protect. They’re the same projects in which so-called green environmentalists are installing wind turbines and blowing the tops off mountains to make space for the huge concrete bases of massive wind turbines.
Here’s what I don’t understand. Here’s a sensible motion about the need to protect our beautiful environment, yet the motion ignores the massive environmental damage from net zero measures. How can anyone look at one of Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful. No, it’s not. It’s vandalism. This is not just happening on land. Offshore wind turbines harm the environment. A new study in Science Advances shows that offshore wind turbines actually warm the sea surface. Turbines slow the wind. This weakens mixing, shuts down upwelling and in turn traps heat at the surface. This changes the microclimate for more than 10 kilometres behind and stirs up sediment which interferes with marine life, including whales. Add this to bird kills, underwater noise and microplastic shedding and the picture is clear: offshore wind isn’t solving an environmental problem; it’s creating one. This does not even take into account the environmental cost of manufacture, transport, insulation, maintenance, decommissioning, disposal and remediation of massive wind turbines.
One Nation will care for the natural environment. We will ensure that the land is in the hands of the best stewards: farmers. We will cancel the entire project and protect those beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism, returning land, where possible, to its best use, be that farming or native forests. Unfortunately, we can’t put the tops back on mountains. That damage is there for eternity—a testament to hubris and the tragedy of the paradox of virtue. It’s the killing of the environment in the name of saving the environment. One Nation is now the party of the environment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/14qDPVETo1U/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-29 14:55:132026-05-29 14:55:25Saving the Planet or Destroying It? The Ugly Truth
One Nation aims to increase domestic oil and gas exploration and production by partnering with the industry rather than restricting it. Our goal is to secure greater financial returns for Australians, lower energy prices, and reduce government debt through direct state investment rather than new taxes or forced reservations.
By financially backing exploration and taking an equity share, our aim is to boost fuel security and give Australians “real ownership” of their natural resources.
Transcript
Well, it’s a real honour to be with you today and especially to introduce my gas policy to you. I think it’s very important. I hope that you see in my policy, I have a vision for this country and I think it reflects in my gas policy, so let me share it with you.
Thank you to the Australian energy producers for having me at your 2026 conference. Today I will be announcing One Nation’s new oil and gas policy. This is a bold long-term vision that will give the Australian people vastly greater returns from their resources and align government objectives with our world-class gas industry.
Australia’s gas reserves are nothing short of a miracle. For a country with only 0.3% of the world’s population, we supply nearly 10% of the world’s exported gas. One Nation has always fought for a fair return for the Australian people on our country’s natural resources.
Australians are rightly unhappy. Despite our enormous resource wealth, ordinary families are not seeing the benefits in affordable energy, reduced debt or improved services. Public unrest is building because successive governments have failed to secure a fair share while pursuing policies that risk killing the industry that generates that wealth.
One Nation understands that gas doesn’t magically extract itself. Gas production is only possible with the expertise of the private industry. One Nation will work with industry as a partner, leveraging this expertise to get the most out of our incredible resources.
We want more gas, more oil and more energy to drive our economy forward, pay down our debts and secure our energy future. Before I go on to our policy, I would like to take a moment to address the other policies that have been put forward. Senator David Percock and the Greens Party, along with lobby groups like the Australian Institute, continue to call for an industry-destroying 25% tax on gas exports.
The tax would apply to the total value of all gas exports and destroy the economics of the entire industry. That is their goal. They have drawn false equivalency with countries like Norway, who share the full risks and rewards with their industry.
A model that has succeeded because government and industry partner together, supported by generous tax incentives. These activists simply want to destroy our gas industry and push their Green Agenda scam. It’s nothing more than economic vandalism.
They don’t live in reality. They live in a ridiculous net-zero fantasy world, where fertilisers, plastics, medicines and rubber can be made with the intermittent power from solar panels. Where the 1,500 degree furnaces for smelting can be run on wind turbines.
They want gas stopped. One Nation wants more gas extracted, bigger returns and real energy security. One Nation has previously considered an East Coast gas reservation policy.
However, through consultation with industry and stakeholders, it became clear that it fell short of our policy objectives. The government’s 20 per cent reservation policy will damage onshore development of oil and gas projects. Many of these projects are Australian producers currently supplying the domestic market.
It forces inefficient use of our precious resources under the oversupply model. We will not destroy the industry with forced oversupply. Our policy will instead be flexible to export surplus gas when domestic demand is satisfied, building sovereign wealth rather than undermining domestic supply projects.
Typical of this government, they have thrust these changes onto existing projects with little to no consultation, damaging their ongoing feasibility. This policy is a blunt tool that will result in less competition and less efficient industry. One Nation’s policy will drive more exploration, more development and more production, without pushing out smaller Australian producers.
One Nation is proposing a genuine partnership with the gas industry from exploration through to production and decommissioning. We will provide a 30 per cent rebate on genuine oil and gas exploration in Commonwealth waters. In exchange, the Commonwealth may take up to 30 per cent equity in issued production licences.
The Commonwealth would be responsible for its costs as an equity owner and in turn be entitled to a proportionate share of the production. These costs will include participation in decommissioning, ensuring responsible end of life management is planned from the outset to protect the environment and taxpayers. These ownership rights would be 100 per cent owned by a new Commonwealth special investment vehicle, the Australian National Wealth Investment Corporation or called ANWIC.
ANWIC will direct its share of oil and gas to Australia’s greatest benefit, selling to critical domestic industries like fertiliser production, energy and fuel refining or exporting when the domestic market is well supplied to pay down debt and build sovereign wealth. This flexibility will maximise value for Australians while encouraging industry participation. One Nation would ensure the ANWIC board consists of only industry experts who have had success in the oil and gas industry, not government appointed bureaucrats.
Any profits made on Australia’s equity ownership will be put into a sovereign wealth fund to reinvest and grow, not to be rorted by future governments. Importantly, ANWIC would only act as a non-operating equity partner. We recognise that the expertise rests in our world-class industry and we are there to benefit from their knowledge.
ANWIC would also be empowered to invest in current producing projects. And before the Greens get excited, this won’t be some socialist takeover. It must pay its way into any existing project under commercial arms length terms, not under compulsion or coercion.
This will be a direct financial investment, not a takeover. The equity model gives flexibility to support domestic manufacturing or capture high export prices. It also provides the predictability foreign investors need.
Japan and South Korea are looking elsewhere because of policy instability in Australia. We must look after our trading partners. South Korea takes our LNG and supplies us with essential liquid petroleum products.
Stable partnership policy will keep these vital relationships strong instead of driving capital away. Under One Nation’s policy, the government will have skin in the game as a true partner to industry, maximising returns to the Australian people. This bold new strategy will be supported by One Nation’s long-standing policies of cutting red, green, black and blue tape and dumping net zero targets.
When I consulted gas producers on this policy, they were shocked to be asked their views. One Nation has done more consultation with industry than this government has ever done. The gas industry has been fighting an uphill battle against net zero-obsessed governments.
To all the representatives here, you will not be spared by trying to satisfy the net zero zealots. If you accept any form of net zero or emissions reduction policy, you are signing your industry’s death warrant. They will not stop until oil and gas in Australia is gone.
One Nation will dump all net zero policies. We will abolish the safeguard mechanism that fines gas companies for doing their job. It is actively destroying investment.
It sets rigid emission baselines and imposes heavy penalties, often millions per facility for breaches, even if our gas supports energy, security or vital industry. Companies divert enormous sums to compliance and offsets instead of production and jobs. Constant rule changes create uncertainty, leading to project delays and cancellations and telling investors Australia is not open for business.
At the same time, insane environmental approval processes driven by activist litigation and aligned with UN net zero ideology are compounding the damage. Capital is fleeing to the places that are rolling out of the red carpet, taking jobs and money away from Australians. Red, green, black and blue tape must be cut.
Approvals will be decided within six months with certainty. Fixatious legal claims will not stop vital projects. One Nation is taking the industry in a fundamentally different direction, clearing the way for Australian industry and thinking in generations, not election cycles.
We want more gas unlocked and government as a genuine partner, not an adversary to the industry. Lastly, the petroleum resource rent tax has been a failure in the gas industry. PWRT for offshore gas is not consistent or fit for purpose.
It was designed for oil projects and its structure does not suit gas economics. This has led to unstable tax revenues and eroded community trust. One Nation would replace the PWRT with a simple Commonwealth royalty on wellhead value.
This will give the Australian people a consistent tax take, help preserve the industry’s social licence and provide industry with predictable costs based on production. This change will only apply to prospective projects, grandfathering current PWRT arrangements under which billions were invested. Our policy aims for returns through participation, not ever increasing taxation.
This policy is a massive shift in how Australia gets returns from its resources. Australians will have real ownership of their resource assets for the first time and they will get first use. One Nation will be a partner of industry on behalf of the people of Australia to ensure we have fuel security, cheaper power and pay down our debts while providing the predictability our trading partners need to continue their mutual beneficial relationship with Australia.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/FgJwt2f6R6A/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-22 05:37:202026-05-22 05:37:25One Nation’s Gas Policy: Securing the Wealth of the Nation
For over 15 years, I have warned that the climate scam is a direct assault on the Australian way of life.
And it’s not just our hip pockets being hit — it’s our humanity.
Labor and Chris Bowen are selling you a “renewable revolution,” yet they aren’t telling you who’s paying the real price.
While Australian families struggle with soaring power bills, children in the Congo are forced into medieval conditions, digging for the minerals that fuel our “green” future.
Women are working in toxic, open-cut mines controlled by the Chinese Communist Party – all so we can pretend we’re “saving the planet.”
Our environment is being destroyed, our wildlife killed off, our economy smashed – and everyday Australians are getting poorer.
It’s not a revolution. It’s a scam!
Note: The data for 2026 confirms that our energy security has been sold off to foreign interests, with the vast majority of these large-scale wind and solar projects owned by overseas entities.
We need to stop this madness and put Australian families and human decency above the “renewable at all costs” cult. There is nothing virtuous about “renewable” energy.
