I questioned the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner at Senate Estimates. This is one the dozens of climate related agencies that the government pays for in their never-ending pursuit of renewables.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you chair. Thank you, Mr. Dyer, for being here with us.
[Mr. Dyer] My pleasure.
[Malcolm Roberts] The data shows the large project subsidy is around $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide and that’s close to $40 per megawatt hour. If the large scale renewable energy target has been achieved, which is what we’re told why is there a positive price to the renewable energy targets, certificates effectively subsidy when any such price is possible only if the regulatory measures are in place requiring retailers incorporate this energy in their supplies. So if we’ve achieved the target, why is it still there?
[Mr. Dyer] It’s a fantastic good question, but it’s not my area of expertise overall or roles I’m the ombudsman effectively for renewable energy and transmission. So it’s not, one I can comment on
[Malcolm Roberts] Are you the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner?
[Mr. Dyer] It’s formerly the National Wind Farm Commissioner.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah the National Wind Farm Commissioner, okay. So the history of manufacturing, the history of farming, the history of just about any service if it’s dealt with closely and evaluated closely then managing a process is most productive and efficient when variation is minimised. So what we’ve got now is an increase in variation of supply from electricity, and that’s the most crucial sector. So the sector that determines our manufacturing success, our agricultural success, our processing success, the quality of life, the affordability of energy is now being driven by increasing variability through wind and solar which have notoriously variable, energy supplies. Is there any thought been given to that? That’s inherently more expensive.
[Mr. Dyer] Senator, my role is to help work with communities and proponents and governments to help the rolled out of projects to occur in the country around the country. I don’t set the policy about what should be put out there on a pathway to help resolve concerns.
[Malcolm Roberts] Do you have any concerns from citizens as I do from our constituents that we’re supposed to be doing all of this stuff, transitioning to unreliable energy because of climate yet, we’re transitioning to the two things that are make us even more dependent on weather and climate variability, seems insane to me. Do you have any constituents as I do who are complaining about that?
[Mr. Dyer] Most constituents, the complaint to us, very supportive of renewable energy, but just don’t want one in their backyard.
[Malcolm Roberts] Why is that?
[Mr. Dyer] Because of the perceived impacts of the visual amenity noise, property values, of fire risk and a whole range of things that might to be tabled to our attention.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s low vibes, low frequency vibrations in particular?
[Mr. Dyer] Yes. There have been a body of complaints about what’s called infrasound.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. Yeah. I’ve heard them of people in severe pain, trauma almost due to it. Has any study being done on the impact of wind turbines on energy and Earth’s atmosphere and the effects of that wind turbines taking energy out of the atmosphere.
[Mr. Dyer] Not to my knowledge.
[Malcolm Roberts] It might seem very minuscule but then you see labor’s carbon dioxide tax was introduced to cut the number of carbon dioxide molecules in air from one in 5.7 million produced by humans to one in 6 million. So that seems very minuscule too but we’ve got a whole industry and the decimation of other industries based on a theory that when in reality nature is shown to control the level of carbon dioxide in the air. So no studies have been done looking at the effect of taking energy out of earth’s atmosphere and out of the earth’s winds that you’re aware of. I’m not aware of any either.
[Mr. Dyer] No, there’s been theories around that. Wind turbines might cause frost because they take the wind out of the sail, so to speak. And the top here that might protect vineyard from causing frost could be at risk. But when we’ve dug into those research matters there hasn’t been any substance to them.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So wind sources of power are not reliable. They’re unreliable, they’re costly inherently so because they’re very low density energy they’re unstable in terms of they’re being asynchronous. When they’re added to the grid, they increase instability. They’re scattered, which increases transmission costs. They have limited life sometimes as short as 10 to 15 years then I have an environmental legacy with massive burials in Wyoming for example. I don’t know what’s going to happen in Australia. Is anyone talking about those issues?
[Mr. Dyer] Decommissioning is certainly a big topic at the moment as we come to end of life of many wind farms around the country and who pays, who is accountable, what is the disposal, disposal mechanism for things their blades is a hot topic. Thank you very much Mr. Dyer.
The government has been able to cut down emissions mostly on the back of locking up land and stopping farmers from using it. This huge infringement on property rights by the states has been done without compensation. It is disgusting that governments have locked up farmer’s land to meet United Nations emissions targets. Every farmer deserves either restoration of their rights to use the land how they need or compensation for the rights they have lost.
Transcript
Hanson-Young, Senator Roberts. You have the call.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair. Thank you for being here. Minister, I’d like to ask you a question. Several questions, in fact. In order to comply with the UN’s Kyoto climate protocol in 1996, the then Howard Anderson Liberal National’s Government appropriated farmers’ property, specifically land property rights. But section 51 clause 31 of our country’s Federal Constitution requiring the payment of just terms compensation. So what the Howard Anderson government did was a deal with firstly the Borbidge National Party Government in Queensland state government. And later, that was in 1996, and then a Memorandum of Understanding. And then in 1998, the Howard Anderson Government did a deal with the Beattie Labour Government. Again, a state government. So these state governments initially signed a Memorandum of Understanding and later passed state laws forbidding the clearing of land under various guises such as native vegetation protection. So they appropriated farmers’ property rights for the Howard Anderson Government to comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. And that’s in writing from Premier Beattie. And it’s, it’s quite clear from what the Premier’s have said in Queensland and New South Wales. Minister, is this fair? To go around the Constitution to appropriate someone’s property rights? As citizens, Australian citizens, property right?
Well look–
[Chair] All right, that’s asking a matter of opinion.
[Malcolm Roberts] But the Minister, I’m not asking it of the public service.
Well, you can ask the Minister about government–
[Malcolm Roberts] Is that a fair policy?
[Chair] Well Minister, if you wish to answer that you can.
I mean, you’re asking me to comment on policies going back to, you know, well before my time in politics, in the first instance. In the, in the 1990s. So I might, I might sort of take it as a comment. I understand the concerns you’re raising. There’s obviously a lot of, would’ve been a lot of factors being debated there. And in terms of the constitutional issues you raise, well of course those issues are always a matter for the high court.
[Malcolm Roberts] Given that a few tens of thousands of farmers carried the burden for a whole nation just to comply with arbitrary UN dictates without compensation. And it was done deceptively to get around their constitutional rights as Australian citizens. Is it reasonable–
Senator Roberts, imputation of improper motives is not in line with the standing of this. You should withdraw that and–
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, I’ll withdraw that
and rephrase your question.
[Malcolm Roberts] But it was clearly stated by the Queensland Premier that it was done to enable compliance with the Howard Anderson Government with UN Kyoto Protocol. That was clearly stated. Minister, are you aware that seven years after Prime Minister Howard was removed from office in 2014, in a major address to a global warming policy think tank that opposes the UN’s de industrialization of Western civilization. Prime Minister Howard admitted that on the matter of climate science, he was agnostic. Yet he put in place their renewable energy target. He had the first major party policy on emissions trading schemes or carbon tax. He was the first to introduce that as a policy and he also appropriated or caused the appropriation of farmers’ property rights. And yet he was agnostic on climate science.
I’m not aware of those comments.
[Malcolm Roberts] So he appropriated property from tens of thousands of farmers to achieve our goals under UN dictates. And yet himself was agnostic on the climate science. So what will your government do to restore or compensate farmers for property stolen from them?
Well, look, you’ve made a number of assertions there. It’s difficult for me to– It’s difficult for me to give a, perhaps a useful answer to you without dealing with all of the assertions. And it’s difficult for me to deal with them. So–
[Malcolm Roberts] Happy to have a conversation later.
It, well, indeed, I’m very happy to. But I might, I might take, I think it’s very difficult for me to answer as you’ve made a number of assertions. We could probably spend a lot of time on those. I don’t know how useful it would be. But, I’d probably perhaps take it as a comment.
[Chair] And Senator Roberts I would just say you do have the offer there from the Minister there to engage some other time. You have the Climate Change Authority here before you. So can I encourage you if you have question of them, to put questions to them.
[Malcolm Roberts] Certainly, I will just make the point though that farmers are wanting either restoration of their lawful rights, their constitutional rights, or compensation for that. Thousands of farmers deserve it. Now to the clean energy, to the Climate Change Authority. Your authority’s Toolkit for 2030 rehearsed all the familiar factoids. It shows a graph. I don’t know the title of the graph. But it shows the various– costs of various reductions of emissions and production of carbon dioxide and the costs. And the most prominent, and the entire load is carried by this. The only one that declined significantly is land use, reflecting what I was just talking about with the minister. So. Are you willing to talk about your views on solar energy? Because, let me see, I think it was Arena said that solar energy is now the cheapest form of energy. My understanding is that in Saudi Arabia, that is correct. But when we factor in the fact that we need a certain area of land covered in solar panels. Then you factor in the cloudy days that doubles that area. So it’s now double that cost. When you factor in the nighttime, no sun shines. Not even in Saudi Arabia. That’s triple the area. Then we need the cost of the battery. Solar becomes prohibitively and impossibly expensive. Can you make any comments on that?
Certainly. So Brad Archer, Chief Executive Officer of the Climate Change Authority. Senator, I’m not sure I have a lot to add to the advice that colleagues from other agencies have provided here this evening on that question. We looked to the same reports, analysis and evidence that they do including the International Energy Agency and authorities such as the Australian Energy Market Operator here in Australia. And the analysis and modelling that they put forward clearly shows that renewable energy and in particular, solar is highly cost competitive compared against other new build technologies into the future. And that, that advice looks reasonably compelling.
[Malcolm Roberts] It does look compelling on a per unit basis until we factor in the need for additional solar panels to cover for cloudy days and nighttime and batteries. Then it becomes prohibitively expensive. It becomes a parasitic mal investment.
Senator, the analysis that I’m referring to that I’m aware of includes the costs of firming technologies that are required to ensure that we have a reliable electricity supply while relying predominantly on variable renewable energy technologies.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, the claims of climate change and especially climate alarm are driving this. But we’ve heard of worries tonight from several agencies. Snowy Hydro in particular. But also Minister Taylor was forthright enough to come out a couple of weeks ago and say that he’s very concerned about future prices. He’s very concerned about grid stability, and he’s very concerned about the loss of reliability from our energy sector. And what I’ve seen in the thread going through all these presentations is the use of terms. Firming for example, instead of unreliability or insecurity. The term is firming, sounds lovely. Instead of high price, the term is subsidy or enhancement. Instead of instability, the term is frequency control auxiliary service. A service, an additional cost that doesn’t come with base load power from coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear or hydro. It’s an addition. Instead of blackout, the term is system integrity protection system. Instead of power cuts, the demand, the term is demand management. Sounds wonderful. Instead of unreliables, the term is clean energy. What exactly do you do.
Senator, I’m just not quite sure what your, what your question is that you’d like me to address.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, I’ll take a quote from your authority’s report. Or Toolkit for 2030. Australia’s electricity sector is undergoing a transformation. From all of the things that we took for granted walking in and flipping a switch. Reliability, cheap, the cheapest power in the world. To now amongst the most expensive. We’re undergoing a transformation. Government Australia’s electricity sector is undergoing a transformation. Government support for renewable energy, the emergence of new clean energy technologies. Declining technology costs, and the need to replace an ageing coal fired generation fleet are all playing a part. Then you continue. Currently markets fail to adequately recognise and price climate related risk because of a lack of information and short-termism in investment decision making. However, this is changing quickly as relevant tools become available and financial regulators divert more attention to the issue. What are you doing? What do you do?
Well sir, I think in large part you’ve provided the answer by reading the material that’s in the authority’s report. There are a range of factors that are driving a transformation in electricity sector. Some of those are related to the response to climate change impacts and risks, and others are a result of what’s happening in the market itself and the need to replace ageing generation assets. And I think both the market and the market authorities are recognising that the cheapest way to do that and build the electricity system that we need in the future is with the low cost technologies. And which also have the benefit of being low emissions. So we have a range of institutions that are spending a lot of time working out how to ensure that the electricity system of the future is stable and reliable and affordable. For example, the energy security board is leading work on future market arrangements for the electricity sector. That’s a major piece of work. And there are other institutions in the electricity sector which are also turning their mind to these issues. So, and I think there’s a broad consensus that we have the technologies, and we have the means of achieving an electricity system which does meet those goals.
[Malcolm Roberts] Did you respond to my requests put on notice for the evidence upon which this is all based? The climate evidence?
[Brad Archer] Senator–
[Malcolm Roberts] The reason I ask is I’m not trying to be cheeky or smart. I don’t know because we were flooded with responses late last week, just a few days before Senate estimates. And I don’t know which ones have replied and which ones haven’t, but we asked you for that. Where’s your empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. We wanted the specific location of the evidence the data and the framework for proving that. And we also wanted the specific relationship between carbon dioxide quantities that affect climate temperature, wind, rainfall, etc. So you just mentioned, could you put it on, get me on notice, please. You just mentioned the effects of climate change that are already present and the risks that you foresee. Could you give me that on notice?
Well, I could give you that on notice and I can also attempt to answer that briefly today.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/dFSK5LsjOzE/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-26 10:52:142021-06-01 17:41:49Here’s one for the Farmers: Restoration or Compensation (Climate Change Authority)
Before the government started splashing billions of dollars on renewables, the price of energy was around $40/MWHr. That price has increased more and more since 2015.
Transcript
[Chair] Senator Roberts, you have the call.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair, and thank you all for being here. What is the true costs of Snowy 2.0, including associated transmission linkages and all associated costs required to make it operational and productive?
[Paul Broad] Well, the transmission, as I’ve said many times here, is not part of 2.0. The transmission is to enable the transition to renewables. And the cost of all that transmission is in the hands of others, not in our hands. So I can’t comment on transmission. But Snowy 2.0., as I’ve just said here many times, in nominal dollars, it’s a 5.1. And then attached to that we have a contingency factor of $400 million. And we now can confirm that the environmental costs, the offsets costs are about roughly $100 million.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What is the average annual saving that Snowy 2.0 will enable in the marketplace?
[Paul Broad] Sir, I don’t understand.
[Malcolm Roberts] What was the saving? The economic modelling has found that Snowy 2.0 will provide savings of market benefits of between $4.4 and $6.8 billion and reduced spot prices, leading to lower costs for consumers.
[Paul Broad] Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] What will be the benefit?
[Paul Broad] So, as I said, I think he said it four years ago, what it does is firm up renewables and allows it to compete. And we do so at a price point, at that time I said, some senators were here at the time, we said that we can compete with base load power. And that’s been proven to be true, even with existing Snowy. So the benefits will come is to renewables, lower prices, etc, etc, that stem from 2.0. I emphasise again, you can’t go down the renewables track without significant amounts of deep storage.
[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s an added cost to renewables.
[Paul Broad] You can’t have renewables without it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Right, so that’s an added cost to renewables.
[Paul Broad] Yep.
[Malcolm Roberts] Do the projected savings take us back to a sustained $40 per megawatt hour price, that prevailed prior to government interventions favouring renewable energy that brought the post-2015 price increases?
[Paul Broad] I can’t comment on that. I can comment that the renewal penetration is significantly pushing downward on prices. Wholesale prices are significantly down, the forward curve is down. But you gotta be able to balance that out. That’s been helped a lot by existing baseline plants being flexed up and down to keep the lights on. So I can’t comment on going back to those days. Those days, where driven by cheap baseline.
[Malcolm Roberts] Driven by cheap baseline? So that’s correct. That’s my understanding too.
[Paul Broad] Mm-hmm.
[Malcolm Roberts] So coming to the Curry Curry project, do you think that private sector participants perceive the risks of such a new plant? My understanding is that the Minister was really keen for private and private sector to take on Curry Plant or provide that what the Curry Plant will be providing. But instead that’s not happening, so the government’s jumping in. So do you think that private sector participants perceive the risk of such a new plant to be excessive, in light of government subsidies, present and planned, to intermittent wind and solar?
[Paul Broad] So EA didn’t. So they’re building. Energy Australia didn’t, so they’re building a plant tolerably. Can I just say, the other one was AGL. They’d be talking about building a plant at Tomago since, I think, 2012. And I don’t believe the – in their interest to build and enable competitors to offer up more competitive products than what they currently supply from their base load power stations. So, I suspect there are wider considerations than just gas plants for AGL. But I can’t, you know, I’m speculating.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, there are many –
[Paul Broad] And for us sorry?
[Malcolm Roberts] So, many complicating factors.
[Paul Broad] Yeah, many. But, for us that, you know, we look on the other side. I mean, when the bush fires happened here, 18 months ago, the tragedy of those fires, only for Colongra – Only for Colongra the lights were a struggle to stay on in New South Wales. And we faced, because of the contract market that Roger was describing, we looked at losing somewhere in the order of $150 million because we were on the wrong side of the contracts. Colongra came on, we lost, I think, $30 odd million in an hour and a half, which is the risk to business. We are in a risky business, eh? So you gotta take the losses at times. So, you gotta be able to have faster firming generation to enable this transition to happen. That’s just what’s happening now, it’s happening in Queensland right now. Queensland have 400,000 properties without power. There’s a hospital in Queensland on emergency diesel. Right now. This is real. And they’re firing up gas plants. Please, this is serious. This is deadly serious. These are people who are in serious predicaments. And we sit here today. Let me tell you, I spend my life thinking about this. That’s what I do every day. I think about what we can do, to not let that happen.
[Malcolm Roberts] And Mr. Broad, I’ve been thinking about it for decade. I don’t have your level of expertise in the electricity sector, but we knew this time was coming. Based upon policies that Labor and Liberal governments have pushed. Does the decision of Snowy Hydro Limited, to undertake such an investment at Curry Curry, indicate it has a lesser risk aversion than its private sector rivals?
[Paul Broad] No, I don’t think that’s true at all. I think EA has obviously seen that they need to go. I think that as I say, energy has, AGL had other considerations to think about. I can’t comment on origin. I can’t work that out, because they have a wonderful hydro plant just on the edge of the Sydney Basin and the Victoria Falls Hydro Plant. It’s a fabulous plant. So I can’t really look into that, but I don’t think a difference on risk. We manage risk to the enth degree.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, is it because private firms just cannot justify the risk and investment because government has favoured high cost renewables? Or unreliables, as I call them?
[Paul Broad] I don’t think so. No.
[Malcolm Roberts] You don’t think so?
[Paul Broad] I think Energy Australia has proven that –
[Man] Energy Australia has proved positive of that effectively.
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry?
[Man] Energy Australia has proved positive of that effectively.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So isn’t Snowy 2.0, coming back to Snowy 2.0.. Oh well, let’s just ask another question on Curry. Isn’t the private sector effectively competing with government subsidised unreliables, especially after Matt Kean in New South Wales, and Lily D’Ambrosio in Victoria recently declared further fostering of unreliables and with transmission lines and guaranteed payments and controls, favouring and protecting unreliables?
[Paul Broad] So, I think the subsidies are flung to the private sector as much as anyone else. I note that Energy Australia got $80 million, I think or there abouts. So I think 50 from New South Wales and some from the Feds. I noticed Twiggy Forrest got $30 million for his proposed LNG plant. I’m sure he needs the $30 million. He got his – He got his $30 million for that. So there was a lot, you know, I don’t think you’ve singled out any one groups in the industry. But the transition is happening. Let’s be clear. The transition is happening. Once the renewables gets and transmission can deliver to market, the firming that needs to be built is massive. It is on a scale that it’s hard to even comprehend.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, we have the Minister himself, the last question, Chair. The Minister himself, Mr. Taylor, has cited Bloomberg’s graph on support of clean energy or unreliable energy, as I’d call it. And Australian, per capita, is investing more. Twice as much as the next major country investing in this unreliables energy. We’re investing double the United States, six times what China is doing. And we’ve already heard from you and Mr. Whitby, what’s happening as this transition occurs, this forced transition, and it’s bringing considerable risk to our whole Electricity Sector. So, I would see Snowy 2.0 itself as an admission of failure because it relies on high peak power rates. It wouldn’t work without that.
[Paul Broad] I think that’s a comment, not a question, sir.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/TqLA0tEuvys/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-25 19:16:392021-06-01 17:41:54What do we get for the $5.1B on Snowy Hydro?
The Inland Rail is a huge project. It is riddled with uncertainty and secrecy. The ARTC won’t release the business case for the project, even though we have evidence that many of the assumptions used for it are completely flawed. The Inland Rail started as costing less than $3 Billion, it is now estimated at nearly $24 Billion. While the head of the ARTC is on $1 million+ of taxpayer money a year, all of the detail should be publicly available.
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts] First question is, can you list Inland Rail Social Media Accounts, and how much we spend on social media including Instagram in the last financial year. Please
[Witness] Sure, we’ll probably have to take it on notice, so we can give you some idea of quickly, but we found social media to be extremely effective and greatly improve, some of our engagements that was asked about earlier, we find that we have interactive dialogues on a real-time basis with people they don’t have to come to us, we don’t have to go to them. We can provide very technical information, including maps. They can post questions on those maps. So the social media interaction has been extremely effective. Do you want to provide any additional detail to back up?
[Witness] No. I mean, I think we’re finding it as a good value for money medium. And, but yes, we have multiple channels, as you would expect. Again, we can confirm those, but all the ones you would expect Facebook and Instagram, LinkedIn, those things are on YouTube, those sorts of things. So, but we can get you the details.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. The business case lists 87 coal trains a week, going into Brisbane every week, all the way through to 2050, I understand that coal reserves that would come down that line run out in 2030. Is that true? And if so, what does that do to your business case?
The first part, we would be speculating on we’d have to take it on notice ’cause we don’t control the coal market.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes Obviously.
The second part, we have testified previously, that even if coal was to go to zero, and I’m going to ask Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hornsby to correct me if I’m wrong, but even if the coal volumes were to go to zero, that the business case still stacks up and still had a benefit to cost ratio over two
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. The Queensland government only allows 10 million tonnes of coal to be sent to Brisbane port, currently the port handles 7 million tonnes, is this limit of 10 still in place? And rather than 87 trains a week, how many will the remaining 3 million tonnes generate? We make it out around about seven trains a week, not 87.
Yeah. Again, we’d have to take that on notice ’cause I’m not sure the limitations at the port of Brisbane.
[Malcolm Roberts] Is it true that the port of Brisbane can only unload trains for 49 hours a week, being 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday to Friday, ten to two on Saturday and closed all day Sunday? If so, how long does it take to unload a train? The point being, how many trains can the port of Brisbane actually service as against the business case?
So, Senator the business case was primarily a terminal to terminal activity, so from Melbourne to Acacia Ridge. So as far as I’m aware that the business case didn’t really cater or talk to traffic between traffic to and from the port.
[Malcolm Roberts] How then can we assist the viability?
Of
[Malcolm Roberts] Providing the Inland rail if you don’t know the service?
Yeah, so the inland rail is being built as a terminal to terminal, and I think as we heard earlier on there may be more than one terminal in Brisbane, and there is a separate business case analysis looking at that link to the port which is not part of the inland rail project.
[Malcolm Roberts] So if the port of Brisbane is not modelled in that how do we know the impact of the port on the inland rail? The constraint of the port?
I might ask my colleague Simon.
[Simon Orsby] Okay let me introduce myself. Sir I’m Simon Ormsby executive interstate network for ROTC and I’ve joined the bench. It’s okay chair. In broad term, we can come back with the details behind the modelling, when we take that on notice. But in broad terms, the number of trains assumed is broadly similar to the number of trains that are passed through today. But there are longer trains in the business case, inland rail and investments enables longer coal trains, so heavier coal trains to be run than today. So the assumptions aren’t poorly different, in the business case to what happens today, but we can come back to your technical notice and come back to all the data around that.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m interested in the impact, of the restricted hours at Brisbane port.
Yep, we’ll come back.
[Malcolm Roberts] Is it true that passing loops at Kings Thorpe and Fisherman’s Island can only handle a train, with the length of 670 metres yet your train are 1600 metres, so how do you propose to get your trains in and out of the port?
So Senator it’s not intended at this point, that longer trains than currently operate to the port today will operate to the port in the future. So our 1.8 kilometre trains will terminate at a terminal outside of Brisbane or on the edges of Brisbane or Acacia Ridge. And then there would need to be a different arrangement, than those trains that would take it to the port.
[Malcolm Roberts] Gets quite complex. Isn’t it?
I can’t validate the length of those crossing loops, but what I can say is part of the business case extensive capacity modelling was undertaken, and assume different lengths of trains, because you have a crossing loop or two crossing loops at 600 metres. Doesn’t mean that every train is limited to 600 metres, and there is, there’s quite a bit of double track, so if you’re particularly in running a narrow gauge train, so some of those coal trains may just have a through run without actually utilising the crossing loop.
Can I maybe just help a little bit, what he’s saying is you can give priority to longer trains, so the ones that use the passing loops are the shorter trains. So it doesn’t have to actually match the length of the train that uses the line to be given that priority.
[Malcolm Roberts] Got it.
So that’s one.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Brisbane trains have a curfew which limits inland rail services to 19 hours a day, which means that the times a train can leave Melbourne needs to adjust to avoid that curfew, there will be a corresponding window in Melbourne, and all along the route, have you modelled how this will affect loads, Once inland rail is fully operational?
So there’s no curfew for trains outside of Acacia Ridge. I’m not, in fact, I’m not aware of a curfew.
[Malcolm Roberts] So you haven’t modelled it?
Sorry,
[Malcolm Roberts] You haven’t modelled it.
No, we’ve assumed there’s no curfew, could say unlimited access between Melbourne, the Melbourne terminals and the Brisbane terminals?
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. The new tunnel ARTC will have to build down from Toowoomba has a grade end of one to 64. The train would need to do 30 kilometres an hour down the tunnel. Once the train exits the tunnel, that limit is 80 kilometres per hour, all the way to the port. Can you demonstrate that this has been factored into the 24 hour transit time?
Yes, and we can give you the train modelling.
[Malcolm Roberts] If we could please, Thank you. The project cost of 14.8 billion does not include anything to do with the tunnel, through the great dividing range outside of Toowoomba. Is that correct?
No.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is the cost?
Of the tunnel?
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.
So projects as we’ve testified a few times now, for commercial and confidence we’re under procurement right now. So we’re not disclosing project budgets, but the total cost of inland rail, does include the cost of the tunnel down the Toowoomba range.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Australian Economic Consultants and Peer reviewed by professor Rolf has put the cost of the tunnel at $5 billion plus $3 billion for new rail line between Acacia Ridge, the port of Brisbane, and $1 billion of other work. This puts the current cost of inland rail at 24 billion. How can it possibly recoup these expenses?
Sorry, Senator Roberts, I’d have to expand on those comments. That’s I believe cost of the tunnel to go to the port, and the improvements to get to the port, which is subject to that separate business case, it wouldn’t be additive to the cost of inland rail. It’s a separate project with a separate business case.
[Malcolm Roberts] How can it still stack up? That’s a heck. That’s a matter for government and the business case.
Sir the port connection, isn’t part of the inland rail project
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry.
The port connection work isn’t part of the inland rail project, and hasn’t been committed to, by any government, then to do the study.
[Malcolm Roberts] It’s additional costs.
Well we were doing a study on what’s viable and what would work with, the Queensland government. And whether or not there is a port connection built will be a matter for future government decision-making.
[Malcolm Roberts] Let’s move on then. In the original discussions around what was then called the north south rail corridor, there was a route that came over the border into Queensland. where it does now near Goondiwindi and then heads north to Mooney before crossing the mountain range at a lower elevation through Mamadoer onto Dalby, and then down to Toowoomba. This allows for a junction at Dalby with coal and bulk grains, going to Gladstone and the freight hub for Brisbane located at Toowoomba. The rest of the trip would be by road using the new $1.6 billion second range crossing which is actually built. Do you have any information on that alignment via Mooney?
Yes. That was looked at some time ago and found not to be economically feasible as an alternative to meet the business case requirements. So maybe I can address the broader question there, which is Gladstone truncating in Toowoomba. The biggest thing about inland rail we have to remember, is the actual business case and the business case was developed over a long period of time between the Commonwealth, the states and ARTC and they all agreed that the way to meet the business case, which was a terminal to terminal to meet the growth demands in Southeast Queensland and Victoria for domestic goods was the broadly the alignment we’re on today. It was not meant to get to port okay. If it was a different business case, it was about getting to the most efficient port, or it was about coal then maybe Gladstone would make a lot more sense. The terminal to terminal is very important, particularly when we look at some of the growth rates in Queensland, if you look at what’s been released in the last month or so out of Southeast Queensland two and a half million people growing to 5 million people, they’re gonna have a lot of needs, and a lot of products and goods and services. And so that is what the supply chain is all about. That’s what inland rail is all about, is getting them the furniture, the food that they need, the beer that they need, the toilet paper that they need. So, sorry,
I said here, here.
Thank you. So trying to divert now and go to Gladstone, it can be an end, but you doesn’t make sense. We have to be true to the business case and deliver on that business case. And that’s what we’re doing.
[Malcolm Roberts] A lot of complexities. In a major project we learn as we start the project, and as we implement the project, there seem to be more and more questions that are coming up.
Yes. And, but that is, you’re exactly right. That’s a major project, and so what you have to do is respond to the learnings, and improve as you go, and have a process that allows you to account for it
[Malcolm Roberts] Could it be that the original business case was not done in sufficient depth quality?
I think it’s one of the better business cases I’ve seen and certainly had a very good benefit to cost ratio compared to other projects. So it’s pretty high quality.
[Malcolm Roberts] Based on early assumptions.
Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] What’s the benefits to cost ratio?
2.6 originally
[Malcolm Roberts] The AEC found that a route that terminated in Toowoomba and sent coal and grain to Gladstone, including the cost of the extra leg to Gladstone would cost $12 billion total on a return of 1.58 as against the current route, including tunnels and links, which is now at 24 billion on a return of investment at 1.01, will you refer the AEC Gladstone alignment with Toowoomba termination, to the rural and regional affairs and transport committee inland rail inquiry for a full review?
Yeah. So I have to correct the statement, that inland rail not 24 billion. We talked about that earlier today, two different business cases. And the second thing about being cheaper to go to Gladstone, if it doesn’t accomplish the business case, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s cheaper. You know, I had this discussion with my family all the time when they buy something on sale that they don’t need, it doesn’t do us any good. So,
If it’s more productive.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. Isn’t it that the issue really about value?
It is about value, but you have to accomplish. One of the great things is, and I’ve mentioned this a few times one of the great things about Australia, as opposed to other countries, I’ve dealt with large infrastructure, large infrastructure projects are justified based on the business case. We have to be true and honest to that business case, it’s disingenuous to deliver something different other than that business case, without going back and changing it.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/g9oZx-JoOn8/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-25 13:00:002021-06-01 17:42:00Is the Inland Rail a $24 Billion White Elephant? Australian Rail Track Corporation
I talked to Marcus Paul about axing changes to the responsible lending laws, my anti-gender-neutral language motion and vaccine passports on 2SM.
Transcript
[Marcus Paul] Well, tell me what happened with YouTube?
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, Marcus, we had a very good interview last week, as usual, trading facts and discussing the facts.
[Marcus Paul] You and I?
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] And we posted it as we always do on YouTube and Facebook. And YouTube banned my post because I mentioned Ivermectin and included some facts, scientific facts, and also said that the doctor successfully prescribed it for me, and I used it several years ago to treat a condition when I came back from India. So it seems factual comments rub Google the wrong way.
[Marcus Paul] Wow, okay, what about Facebook? Is it still there? Because we often share your stuff and obviously because it’s content for our show, but yeah, I know. Oh, okay. Yeah, no gone. Gone.
[Malcolm Roberts]We posted it also on Facebook. It’s still there. But the Facebook censors came knocking on our door for a post I made back in 1st of May which is almost three weeks ago. also proclaiming the facts on Ivermectin that’s been treated it’s being used to treat 3.7 billion doses around the world. It’s proven, safe, etc. etc. And they’ve wiped that one out. So, I mean, always that’s a form of control and always beneath control is fear. These people: Google, YouTube, Facebook are afraid of facts.
[Marcus Paul] All right. Well, Craig Kelly has gone through something similar, as you would know, and that’s why.. Look you mention Ivermectin and the censors go wild. It’s probably because it’s not a part of official government policy. That’s what I’ve been told. And that’s why I was told to steer clear of it and not discuss it. And that’s why I left it well alone, to be honest. But anyway, Malcolm let’s move on. One nation appears to have torpedoed the government’s plans to ditch responsible lending laws. After the parties leader, Pauline Hanson said it would leave Australians vulnerable to predatory banks. After the government last year announced a roll back of laws that affect how banks assess customers for mortgages and personal loans. Senator Hanson yesterday said the government was telling the public to relax and trust the big banks.
[Malcolm Roberts] We are ditching the government’s proposed relaxation of responsible lending laws because it’s wrong. These banks are cutthroat. They’re robber barons and they do not care about people. They care only about making money for the banks. But the Labour Party and the Liberal Party have a history of supporting the big banks. In 2017 Pauline got an inquiry up in to lending to primary production customers. That’s foresters, farmers, fishermen. And she asked me to chair it and we were very strong on it. We worked closely with the National Party, Senator Williams, Wacka Williams, and we had a bipartisan approach. And we went out in to the Bush, got the farmers, supported them, my office, Pauline’s office in particular supported the farmers to make submissions. We supported them. We went out in the bush again before each hearing. We’d got their stories and we told them how to get it across effectively. Very successful. I then held the banks accountable and it was so embarrassing for the Turnbull government at the time that Turnbull and Morrison both said they would not have a royal commission in to the banks. So successful were we at exposing the rorts the banks were doing that we got a royal commission and it embarrassed the government in to it. Now, the point was that we exposed predatory lending and corruption by the banks. Now the Morrison government wants to unwind what we achieved. And we also chase the banks, the Australian banking association, on its own code of conduct. And so we can’t afford to unwind this. We only had a royal commission come down what, two years ago?
[Marcus Paul] Yeah. Yep.
[Malcolm Roberts] This is ridiculous.
[Marcus Paul] All right. Another issue. Maybe the most important of all COVID issues. Vaccine passports. I noticed that from the start you say you’ve opposed vaccine passports that are really vaccine prisons. Tell me about this.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. And when we still maintain that position we will oppose a vaccine passport, a digital passport, because they’re excluding people. You cannot force people in this country to inject something in to their bodies. That has to be an informed choice and informed consent. So what it means is that if you don’t have the vaccine or digital record of your vaccine being administered, then you won’t be able to go onto airlines. You won’t be able to travel overseas. You won’t be able to travel interstate. According to some people. You won’t be able to enter a pub, maybe. Who knows where this will end. That’s why I call it the digital prison. It’s a vaccine prison. And it’s a way of forcing people to take the jab. Now, what you’ll notice also is that Ivermectin is a proven, safe, affordable, alternative to a vaccine. We’re not saying one or the other. We’re saying you take your choice. At the moment, we are not giving people an informed consent. They are not giving us informed consent rather to the government. So we’re forcing people, basically, if the digital prison comes in, so you can get a jab. Whereas we have an alternative vac-, alternative treatment in Ivermectin that is proven, safe and affordable. People need to be able to choose what they want to do.
[Marcus Paul] All right, let’s move on to gender language. You’ve attached a motion here. Individuals have a right to choose their descriptors but we cannot dehumanise the human race and undermine genders. It’s stressing out children. We can never deal with men and women’s health issues if we pretend they aren’t men and women say One Nation.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. I got this motion up in the Senate a few weeks ago. In fact, the Labour Party and the Greens opposed it. They voted against it. The Liberal Party took a bit of talking, but they eventually came on board and we got it through the Senate. What’s happening right now is that fundamental biology and relationships are represented through the descriptions like mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, boy, girl, grandmother, grandfather, uncle, aunt, etc. Mr. Mrs. What the government has done in the past is it’s taken away these descriptors and put gender neutral descriptors in there. And what we want to do is to make sure, and then we called on the government, to make sure that it returns to proper English, because we reject the use of distorted language. Like if you want to talk about a man, then he’s a non-gestational person. Non-gestational parent, father that is. Instead of father, they want to be called non-gestational parent.
[Marcus Paul] What?
[Malcolm Roberts] Mother is gestational parent.
[Marcus Paul] I’ve got a headache.
[Malcolm Roberts] Instead of breastfeeding, it’s chestfeeding. Instead of milk, it’s human milk. Lactating parent. Menstruators instead of women. Now, this is absolutely ridiculous. And we just want to get back to the simple terms that everyone understands. We’ve got to have correct language.
[Marcus Paul] All right. There’s a bit of a fight brewing. And I spoke to Anthony Albanese yesterday about Joel Fitzgibbon. This story kind of broke a little later in relation to the $600 million gas plants which is slated for Curry Curry, up there in the Hunter. Labour say, no. Well certainly Chris Bowen, Anthony Albanese, they all say no that it’s, you know, the cost doesn’t stack up. And they base it with some data from a number of organisations that say the business case just doesn’t work and we’d be wasting our money. The government though wants to power ahead with a gas fired recovery post COVID-19. And that’s why they are using taxpayers money and getting the snowy hydro people to operate this new gas power station. They promise Malcolm that our prices, power prices, will come down. Of course, this is all because Lidell is closing down. Now. Joel Fitzgibbon, Meryl Swanson, seem to be on one side of the argument here in Labour. Whereas the others, including Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese, oppose it. They’re in a bit of trouble I think, mate.
[Malcolm Roberts] They’re in a hell of a lot of trouble. But they’re not the only ones in trouble. The Liberal Party and the National Party are also in trouble because Angus Taylor, the energy minister, has admitted in public that he is afraid of, they’re his words, he’s afraid of higher prices in the future for electricity. Less reliability. The end of reliability and the end of stability for our grid. When I was a kid, I had first-year high school at Curry Curry. I cycled in from the bush, about four mile, we lived in the bush, four miles out. I cycled into town, picked up a town of Western and then Curry, and we’d picked up mates and we cycled to Curry Curry High School. We went past the Curry Curry Alcan Aluminium Smelter. That was built there because of the cheap coal-fired electricity in the Hunter. Because aluminium smelters need a hell of a lot of cheap of electricity and reliable supply. That plant is now shut. They’ve demolished that plant. That’s where they want to build a gas-fired power station. Now, I understand from the Australian newspaper that Tomago has had three shutdowns in the last week. You cannot shut down an aluminium smelter like that.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] They’re also forced with high prices.
[Marcus Paul] Sure.
[Malcolm Roberts] We are destroying our industry in this country and shipping it overseas. We have got to wake up. The cheapest form of power is hydro. That’s without a doubt. The second cheapest is coal. Hydro is limited. Coal is abundant in this country. We are the world’s largest exporters of gas and coal in the world. And sea-borne trade of coal in the world. Now, we’ve also got the fact that the third cheapest, way behind coal, is nuclear. Solar and wind which is what both Liberal Party and Labour Party and Joel’s mob, are going for. Solar and wind and batteries. They’re absolutely ridiculous prices. For every, they’ve proven this overseas, for every so-called green energy job, solar and wind, there are 2.2 real industry jobs lost. It is highly destructive what they’re doing. Both parties.
[Marcus Paul] All right, Malcolm. Good to have you on, mate. We’ll talk again soon.
[Malcolm Roberts] All right, mate.
[Marcus Paul] All right.
[Malcolm Roberts] Bye, Marcus.
[Marcus Paul] There he is. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority makes very scary claims that CO2 is destroying the reef. They do this even though they cannot provide the specific effect of human carbon dioxide on climate factors like air or ocean temperature.
The greens are always rattled when I start to pick apart these claims and you can hear them try to smear me throughout the video.
Transcript
[Chair] Thank you for attending today.
[Malcolm Roberts] First question is: what empirical scientific evidence does the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority have within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect, and specifically proves that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut to save the Reef? GBRMPA has said a lot about that. And I’d like to know what evidence in specific.
[Joshua Thomas] I’ll ask my chief scientist to address that, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Mr Thomas.
[David Wachenfeld], Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not our direct business. There are thousands of scientists all over the world who do research into climate and the effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Those, the work of those scientists is synthesised and summarised in the assessment reports of the IPCC. We don’t independently assess evidence for the effects of carbon dioxide on atmosphere and climate. And that’s a global issue, not a Great Barrier Reef issue.
[Malcolm Roberts] So I understand… I’ve forgotten your name, I’m sorry.
[David Wachenfeld] David Wachenfeld.
[Malcolm Roberts] Mr. Wachenfeld. I understand that…
[Whish-Wilson] Doctor.
[Malcolm Roberts] Doctor. Thanks. I understand that… GBRMPA. Do we have any advance on David? Okay. I understand that GBRMPA has echoed those claims and spread those claims that carbon dioxide needs to be cut to save the Barrier Reef. Is that correct?
[David Wachenfeld] So the Authority’s position is well set out in that Climate Change Position Statement, and yes-
[Malcolm Roberts] What is that?
[Joshua Thomas] So we have a position statement that articulates quite clearly that we see climate change as the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. And that all action should be taken to reduce emissions over time at a global, national and local scale.
[Malcolm Roberts] So according to Dr. Wachenfeld, the evidence for that is in the IPCC.
[Joshua Thomas] No, Senator. The evidence for that is in probably thousands of scientific papers by scientists-
[Malcolm Roberts] You can’t point to where it is specifically for the basis of that policy?
[David Wachenfeld] Well, Senator, there is… I’m trying to summarise here a vast body of global research conducted by scientists all over the world that is probably most authoritatively summarised in the IPCC reports. The specific consequences of climate change for the Great Barrier Reef are also covered by the work of many scientists through many institutions. That work is summarised in our Outlook Report, which we produce every five years.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for repeating it again. Mr. Thomas has just told me, your position statement says it’s carbon dioxide from human activity is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Now I want to know what specifically you rely on. Pinpointed. Where’s the specific scientific data within a logical scientific framework that proves human carbon dioxide affects the Barrier Reef. And here’s the quote, Mr. Thomas: “the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef.”
[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, as Dr. Wachenfeld is trying to explain, there are thousands of sources that we can-
[Malcolm Roberts] I just want one.
[Joshua Thomas] That we consider and digest. And we’d be very happy to provide you a summary or a list of some of those sources that we rely on heavily.
[Malcolm Roberts] What I would like and make very clear is the empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect that specifically states the link between carbon dioxide and various climate factors, such as water temperature, ocean temperature, air temperature, rainfall, droughts, winds, currents, ocean alkalinity. That’s what I would like. Until you have that, it’s no basis for policy, no basis for your statement.
[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, we do have that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Good. I’d like to see it.
[Joshua Thomas] Well, it’s in the Outlook Report, is the short answer.
[Malcolm Roberts] Can you give me the page, please.
[Joshua Thomas] Sorry?
[Malcolm Roberts] Can you give me the specific page of the specific effect of carbon dioxide? To make a policy and a statement on a position statement such as Mr. Thomas has made, we need the specific link between amount of carbon dioxide and impact on those various climate factors. I want to know where it is.
[Joshua Thomas] So, Senator, that’s not one piece of work. The impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on our atmosphere, the greenhouse effect that they have warming our atmosphere, obviously that’s global research. As the atmosphere warms, the ocean warms. That means the Great Barrier Reef warms. The Great Barrier Reef is approximately 0.9 of a degree warmer than it was about a century ago.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in the human cause. I want to see the link, the quantified link. Because until you provide that, there’s no basis for Dr. Thomas’s position statement. I want to know the link.
[Joshua Thomas] Yes, Senator, there is a basis for that position statement.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’d like to see it then.
[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, it’s present in a vast body of global science summarised by-
[Malcolm Roberts] So you can’t give me a specific link to that policy?
[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator.
[David Wachenfeld] The policy, yes, Senator. I’ve got it right here.
[Malcolm Roberts] Specific quantified link stating carbon dioxide from human activity.
[Joshua Thomas] Dr. Wachenfeld has tried to answer your question. The Outlook Report is our best digest of the information available to us about the pressures on the Great Barrier Reef, of which we see climate change as being the greatest. That report has some 1400 citations in it. We’d be very happy to point them out to you here this evening in the back of that document, or separately provide them on notice to you.
[Malcolm Roberts] I just want the specific, I just want the specific interest.
[Whish-Wilson] This is the elbow we’re talking about. It might be very different than Senator Roberts’s ward.
[Roberts] So what-
[Chair] Senator. Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Whish-Wilson. You do not have the call. Can I suggest that you do take that on notice? I think what Senator Roberts is after, is a worked example of one of those pieces of work that demonstrates the linkage he’s talking about. Could I ask you perhaps to take that on notice if that answers your question?
[Malcolm Roberts] Sure. And I’ll make the comment, Chair, that when people align or smear, it indicates they don’t have the evidence. So that’s… Not accusing you of doing that by the way.
[Joshua Thomas] I rest my case.
[Malcolm Roberts] So are you aware that Liberal, Labor and National Party MPs have told me that they have never seen such evidence for the Reef nor for climate generally? Are you aware?
[Joshua Thomas] No. Senator, I’m not aware of what other politicians have told you. Sorry.
[Malcolm Roberts] Are you aware that the Howard-Anderson government introduced a renewable energy target that is now gutting our electricity sector, stole farmers property rights to comply with the UN’s gear of protocols, and was the first major party to introduce a carbon dioxide tax?
[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson.
[Whish-Wilson] You live in-
[Chair] Senator Whish-Wilson. Interjections are disorderly. And Senator Roberts, can I ask you to come to the point on relevant questions that the officials can answer without long preambles. The hour is late and we have another two sections to get through.
[Malcolm Roberts] So on notice you’re gonna provide the evidence. What I highlight, is that I need the specific quantified relationship between human carbon dioxide production and climate factors, including air temperature, ocean temperature, ocean alkalinity, winds, and currents. Is that clear?
[Joshua Thomas] Well, Senator, I should just point out here. We will provide that information to you. We may need to consult other portfolios-
[Malcolm Roberts]Happy to hear that.
[Joshua Thomas] And other experts who have the Commonwealth lead on climate policy.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZDdSIB_tuCs/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-25 11:00:002021-05-27 09:05:56CO2 is not the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef – Senate Estimates GBRMPA
The temperature data supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology is relied on by many climate agencies to support claims of climate change. Some of this data however has been modified. If BOM has been getting it wrong, how can we trust that they are now getting it right? I asked them last night at Senate Estimates.
Transcript
[Senator Roberts] I draw your attention to your State of the Climate reports, 2016 and 2018, and specifically the two graphs of Australian surface air temperatures. One in State of the Climate 2016 on page four and the other in State of the Climate 2018 on page two. Are you familiar with those reports?
[Dr. Johnson] I’m familiar with the reports, but I confess, you know, I haven’t committed those pages to memory.
[Senator Roberts] I can understand that.
[Dr. Johnson] No, I am familiar with the reports, yeah.
[Senator Roberts] One of our research scientists, in updating his records, compared your 2016 graph on page four and your 2018 graph on page two. He then obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology the actual temperatures used in producing those two graphs. He found the two graphs very different for the dates from 1910 to 2016 yet surely the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 should be the same for both graphs, shouldn’t they?
[Dr. Johnson] I believe so, but again, I’d need to check exactly what you’re referring to ’cause they may, Dr. Stone has the report, I think, in front of him. Are you able to shed any light on this?
[Dr. Stone] I’ve got the more recent one. I’m sorry. And like Dr. Johnson, I haven’t committed.
[Dr. Johnson] I’m happy to take these-
[Dr. Stone] It might be easier just to- So we’re comparing apples with apples, Senator, and happy to answer your question.
[Senator Roberts] So let me get to the core point, then. The only changes to produce the 2018 graph should have been, as we see it, the addition of data from 2017 to 2018 on top of the 2016 graph, yet the actual data shows that in the 2018 graph, temperatures after about 1970, looking at the graph, from your perspective, are inflated and progressively increased. And the temperatures before 1970 have been progressively decreased with the effect of increasing the slope of the temperature graph, exaggerating the warming. So I’d like to know what is the reason, on notice, what is the reason for this when temperatures of historical records end up records up to and including 2016 should not have changed at all, let alone systematically changed one way after 1970 and the other way before 1970 to exaggerate the warming. I’d like to know that answer.
[Dr. Johnson] I think we’re happy to take that on notice to make sure we’re answering your question accurately, Senator.
[Senator Roberts] On notice, what basis, on what basis were the temperature data from 1910 to 2016 changed to produce the 2018 graph for the years 1910 to 2016. And has the Bureau of Meteorology’s Australian temperature record been wrong every year until 2018? Can you guarantee that the 2018 record would not turn out to be wrong in 2024? Or is the Australian temperature record anything that BOM says it is? That’s what I need to answer.
[Dr. Johnson] Take those questions on notice, chair, if that’s alright.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ILquABt6bBE/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-25 09:39:472021-06-01 17:42:13What happened to the temperatures? Bureau of Meteorology
We are seeing more conflicts across the world, from Gaza to Mexico to China, because enemies feel more emboldened when there is weak leadership in the United States. They know they can push the boundaries more than they could before.
Expect to see more of it under a Biden administration. I hold grave concerns with how far China will push the boundaries to take advantage of the weak leadership in the US.
Transcript
[Gary Hardgrave] Well, I think that’s right. I mean, look Malcolm Roberts we’re not going to spend the whole hour talking about Israel, but it’s awful with dozens of people on both sides of the border. When it comes to that Gaza strip aggression into even downtown Jerusalem, they have this Iron Dome of protection, missiles that basically blow up missiles out of the ground… out of the sky.
You know that this is ugly, but Israel is a democracy. Israel is the only democracy in the whole of the Middle East. Israel is worthy of defending. But equally the Palestinian claim on the territory is worth, you know, discussing but surely there’s room for both to live peacefully? If only they’ll give peace a chance.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. That’s the first thought that came to my mind when you raise this topic, Israel is indeed the only democracy in the middle East and it needs to stay. And then the Palestinians also have a right to exist. So I don’t think that’s, disputed by sensible people but what you do see when leadership fails, then you start seeing ill discipline coming in and aggression coming because they know there’s less-
[Gary Hardgrave] That’s it.
[Malcolm Roberts] -possibility of a consequence. And look at, look at the Mexican border. Now with the United States people pouring through. Texas now suing. So I read somewhere, Texas suing the Biden administration for being Lax on the border. I mean, it’s all going to custard and what worries me is what the Chinese will do with regard to Taiwan and what the Chinese might do with regard to us when they see a very weak leadership in the what is supposed to be the biggest and most powerful democracy that’s ever existed.
And it’s crumbling, we can see that the United States has really gone South. Thanks to Bill Clinton. Thanks to Barack Obama in particular. There was hope when Reagan was in and there was a lot of hope when Trump was in, but the globalists have taken over and they’re gutting that country. And so we’ll see all the tyrants and the and the despots taking over and playing the games that they can get away with now.
[Gary Hardgrave] Yeah, I think really what’s going on. And it’s awful. As I said, innocent children being killed. Conflict that doesn’t need to be there, is occurring. There is room for everybody to live peacefully. Side-by-side different religions. As I said, Holy land for Jews, for Christians, for Muslims for the Abrahamic faith. Everyone. The people of the book.
And the good sensible Muslims I know, passionate about Palestine understand that, respect that but they also understand that there’s a lot more in common with Jews and Christians, than these sorts of crazy extremists are promoting.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5T3IsgMqu_Q/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-20 17:28:002021-05-18 13:21:39Weak Joe Biden leads to more conflict in the world
Ivermectin has been proven as a safe treatment over 3.7 Billion doses across the world. Why it isn’t at allowed as one option to treat COVID is perplexing. Have the vaccines available sure, but also have the proven safe anti-viral treatments available as well.
It’s no silver bullet, but we should have everything we can get in our arsenal to help save lives.
Transcript
[Gary Hardgrave] And he went different ways. I mean, Malcolm Roberts, that’s the point that it’s like, Oh I sort of joke, You know, we’re not all in this together. Part 53, the latest example, the frequent flyers the people that are able to jet overseas and many times over the last 12 months. Well, good luck to them, I guess because there’s plenty of countries in the world a lot worse off than we are, but they’re landlocked.
They’re connected to other countries, we’ve got that part of it pretty right, there’s no doubt about that. But somewhere along the line this fear factor has gotta be stared down. We’ve got to muscle up and say, well if the celebrities and the highly paid and the really rich and their private planes can jet here and jet there and in their tens of thousands then the rest of us should be able to do it too.
[Malcolm Roberts] What we need, Gary is a plan. On Monday the 23rd of March last year, we assembled for the first for the first simple first single day sitting of the Senate on this COVID supposed crisis. And I stood up and spoke and said, look we’re going to wave everything through. This is, we’ve seen people falling like flies overseas, so we don’t know the scope, the size of this but we’re just going to put, the government giving them everything they need, job seeker, job keeper but I said, we expect you to collect the data.
We will hold you accountable. And we expect you to build a plan. I have not seen a plan. What I’ve seen is lots of fear as everyone has talked about on this show and always behind fear there’s control. And that’s what we see Bronwyn nailed it again, as she always does. We’ve also seen a lack of a plan. In Senate estimates in late March this year I had checked with the chief health officer and the deputy chief health officer for this country.
And I said let me just check that we’ve got the understanding of what’s needed to manage a virus. So the first thing is lockdowns and border lockdowns in particular. And I said, but even the UN world health organisation which I see as corrupt incompetent and dishonest and it’s been proven, such, even they say a lockdown is only used initially to get control. So that means Anastasia Palaszcuk, Mark McGowan and Dan Andrews in Victoria.
And I leave out Gladys Berejiklian because she’s done the best job so far. It’s not a good job, but she’s done the best job so far. That means they’re using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and what they’re doing is they’re admitting they have not got control of this virus. The second thing, and I checked this with the, with the chief health officer. The second thing is testing, tracing and quarantining of the sick and the vulnerable. Testing and tracing to track the virus and nail it quickly. Third thing, individual restrictions things like masks and so on. Yes.
They agreed with me so far. And I said the fourth thing is to have an antiviral treatment a prophylactic, a cure. And they said, yes. Then the fifth thing is a vaccine, if it’s tested and if it’s found to be safe. And they said, yes, and then they added one more. And they said, individual behaviours, things like social distancing. And I said, okay. So I rattled off the six that we agreed on. Anything missing? No. Anything that shouldn’t be there? No.
So my point is what happened to number four, the antiviral treatment? I’ve taken Ivermectin when I came back from India to get rid of a condition that I caught over there. Ivermectin has been given to 3.7 billion people around the world, no health problems.
It’s proven safe over six decades, six decades. And on top of that, it’s cheap. And on top of that it’s now being used successfully with the virus in South America and various European countries and in Asia, why aren’t we discussing it here? I mean, the chief health officer and the deputy chief health officer have said it’s part of the plan and we can open up borders. We can relax a lot of things if we provide what is now a proven, safe cure, in addition to the vaccine, let those who want a vaccine have it. I will take the Ivermectin, I’ve already taken it once for something else. And it worked. And I’m still here mate, I’m not going anywhere.
[Gary Hardgraves] No, I can tell you’re very much so still here. Look before we go to the break,
I ask the Liberal Party, what’s changed since Malcolm Turnbull left? The answer is nothing, not a single policy has changed.
What we see in this budget is a complete lack of vision to enhance our productive capacity with dams, rail, ports and visionary infrastructure. Just sugar hits in the lead up to an election.
Transcript
[Gary Hardgrave] Yeah I mean, Malcolm Roberts, I, for what it’s worth, one of my grandfathers was a truck driver. The other one was a labourer, his last job pick-and-shovel work on the Gold Coast Council. I mean, it’s not exactly absent from my family, that blue collar tradition.
What I don’t get is where Labour and these trendies in the inner suburbs think they can actually relate to the workers and the doers, many of them now forgetting team red and team blue and looking at one nation and other independents, because they want to see real government action when it comes to liberating their right to earn a living, liberating their opportunity to own their own home. Surely you must be hearing and seeing all of that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Oh, well and truly, Gary, you have hit the nail on the head. And perhaps I can go back to something Bronwyn said when I was on with her last year, and that was she was talking about Malcolm Turnbull’s book release, because it’s not just the Labour Party that has lost touch. And she rattled off several things that Turnbull had done.
One was the Water Act, the submarines contract, and she rattled off two others, just so easily as Bronwyn always does. And then she said, “You know the real problem “that Malcolm Turnbull brought to this Liberal party, “he brought socialism here, “and he’s driven socialism into the Liberal Party.” So I ask the Liberal Party, what’s changed since Malcolm Turnbull left?
Nothing, not a single policy has changed. And what we see in this budget is a complete lack of vision to enhance our productive capacity for the future. There’s no infrastructure spending other than trains and, city trains and roads. We need much more than that to restore our productive capacity, to give people a good job.
The other thing, the other point I raised with this budget is that there’s nothing done on the basics. The basics, exactly as you just said, Gary. We need tax reform. Look at, look at a person pays now, the median income in our country is only $49,000 a year. Thanks to Labour and Liberal, our energy costs have gone through the roof. We’ve gone from the being the lowest-priced electricity in the world to amongst the highest in the world. That is destroying manufacturing.
It’s putting cost of living out of the range of families, especially, median income, 50% of the people earn less than $49,000 a year. And electricity is now a huge tax burden. So, and the third thing is fantasy. We’ve got good coal-fired power. We can build hydro electricity, reliable, synchronous, and cheap. What are we betting the house on in the future? We’re burning down our current house and the future house we’re gonna build is hydrogen. We’ve gone from fossil fuels to fantasy fuels. And, you know, this is just bloody ridiculous.
