Watch as these climate change bureaucrats deflect and squirm when trying to answer basic questions about what their department has been doing.
This session looked at why they sold millions of barrels of oil held in the United States and Labor’s new tax on petrol and diesel cars. Like always, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is completely out of touch with reality while trying to tell you what you can and can’t do.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Can we just continue with this strategic reserve? So Australia sold all of the oil reserves in the United States strategic reserve?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels, around June 2022?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the sale amount? $220 million?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to take that on notice. I don’t have that in my folder.
Senator ROBERTS: Who was the oil delivered to?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to also take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How much was paid in seller’s fees, commissions or whatever it is?
Mrs Svarcas: I’m happy to break that down for you on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: How much is the continuing empty lease in the US strategic reserve costing?
Mrs Svarcas: We do have an ongoing contract for that. I will, again, come back to you with the leasing costs on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all I had there. I’d like to move to the ute tax, please.
CHAIR: I think you’ll find it’s not called that, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?
CHAIR: We don’t have such a thing. Would you like to refer to the correct program?
Senator ROBERTS: Your new car tax.
Senator McAllister: We don’t have a new car tax, either.
CHAIR: No new car tax?
Senator ROBERTS: You know what I’m talking about.
CHAIR: How about you just say it, Senator Roberts, so we can get the right people to the table.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know the new fees for petrol and diesel vehicles.
Senator McAllister: It’s possible you’re referring to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
CHAIR: Yes, that sounds a bit more familiar.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s another way of saying it. Minister, why were you so secretive about it? You passed it under guillotine with no debate. Yet again, another bill with no debate.
Senator McAllister: The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard brings Australia into line with the very significant majority of the international vehicle market. It’s a policy—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Minister. The people of Australia elected your government to govern. They didn’t elect the United Nations World Economic Forum, the United States, Great Britain, or other global players. They wanted you to govern this country—not on behalf of others.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, could you allow the minister to finish answering the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Chair.
Senator McAllister: The government was very clear and we had extensive public discussion about the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. I believe there were Senate hearings, although I did not participate in them. We discussed it here in the estimates forum and also in the neighbouring committee at the last estimates hearings as well. Officials can talk to you about some of the public consultation that took place, including the position papers that were released. And senators had many opportunities to express their opinions about this particular policy initiative through the course of the Senate’s work.
Senator ROBERTS: So we don’t need to debate anymore in the Senate?
Senator McAllister: We do need debate in the Senate, Senator Roberts. These were important—
Senator ROBERTS: Second reading, third reading and committee stages?
Senator McAllister: I thought you had asked me a question.
Senator ROBERTS: I am! But I was continuing—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to ask you again to allow the minister to answer the question you have just posed and to not speak over her.
Senator McAllister: The government’s view was that this was an important reform, and that there was some urgency to this reform. It was a reform that had been proposed under a previous government, during a previous parliament, and not progressed. The consequences of that were that Australians continue to pay more than they need to at the bowser because the vehicle fleet in Australia is less efficient than it could be, because the range of vehicles available to Australians is considerably less than we expect it will be under the standard. We think it’s an important policy. We wanted to progress it, and we judged that there was a majority of support in the Senate for that, so we brought it on for consideration.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re afraid of letting the people participate through their views, expressed through senators in debates in second reading and third reading and committee stages, and assessing amendments?
Senator McAllister: I wouldn’t characterise it like that at all.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, are you aware, with an increasing amount of smart metres being installed—despite some people saying they don’t want it—and electric vehicle charging happening overnight offpeak, that’s when coal-fired power is supplying most of the electricity. So there’s potentially going to be an increased demand on coal-fired power stations as petrol and diesel vehicles are set aside in favour of electric vehicles. So you’re actually increasing the carbon dioxide intensity of energy.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I will ask some of the officials to talk you through the expectations that we have for demand on the grid. But the Integrated System Plan, which is produced by the AEMO, includes demand that is predicted to arise from the introduction of greater numbers of electric vehicles into the Australian fleet, along with a range of other changes. It also, as you know, shows a very significant shift to renewable energy, so the emissions intensity of the National Electricity Market is expected to decrease over time, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: So, are they like the projections where you told us we would be having lower power costs, and instead we’ve got far higher?
Senator McAllister: Do you want to talk about the issue that you originally asked me about, or do you wish to move on?
Senator ROBERTS: I just wanted to know what your projections were like and how accurate they are.
Senator McAllister: The Integrated System Plan is a long-established piece of analysis undertaken by the Australian Energy Market Operator. Officials at the table can talk to you about the expectations there and any other information we have of that expected demand on electricity.
Mr Ryan: To start with, I’ll talk about some of the different charging solutions we’re seeing and what impact that’s having. ARENA, who I know will be appearing, will certainly be able to tell you about some of the investment and some of the innovations they’re looking at in charging. You’re right, a lot of charging is done at home—80 per cent, we think—but that’s not just from the grid. A lot of those people—not all, but a lot of them— actually have batteries that charge and store solar energy from during the day. So when they’re charging overnight—it might be from a battery but it also might be from the grid—note that the grid is slowly decarbonising as well. So that’s increasing, day to day. There are other innovations where we’re seeing EV charging being provided at places people visit on a regular basis, whether that’s at carparks during the day or the workplace during the day, whether it’s at the kerbside, at the local gym, at the movies—places where there’s charging, more and more. Sometimes that’s in the evening, but a lot of the time that’s during the day. So we’re seeing some innovation, and there’s certainly been funding—not just from the Commonwealth but from the states and territories—to develop that innovation and look to maximise the solar in there. The last thing I’d say on the projections is that I do know that they take into account the grid and the impact on the grid for the uptake of EVs. So they are in the figures that are provided each year when they do the projections.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
Mr Fredericks: Senator, sorry; could Ms Rowley just give you 30 seconds on that, because it is quintessentially the answer to your question about how all of the emissions impacts are brought to bear.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Ms Rowley: In relation to the annual emissions projections, we look at the change in the vehicle fleet, including the uptake of electric vehicles, which is helping to reduce the direct emissions from transport. But we also take account of the electricity required to meet the growing share of electric vehicles. Just by way of example, for 2030, in last year’s emissions projections, we estimated that there was a seven-million-tonne reduction in transport emissions and a one-million-tonne increase in electricity emissions to meet that additional demand from electric vehicles, so the net effect in 2030 was an estimated six-million-tonne reduction in Australia’s emissions, taking into account both transport and electricity.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure, but I remind you you can’t tell me the impact on climate of that, so you’re basically going with a policy of spending money but not realising the benefit. Minister, do you still maintain—
Ms Rowley: I would note that the new vehicle efficiency standard is projected to save consumers money and reduce the impact of things like health costs on the Australian economy.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question?
CHAIR: Last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you still maintain, Minister, that punishing manufacturers of petrol and diesel vehicles won’t reduce the number of petrol or diesel cars available to Australians?
Senator McAllister: Senator, I don’t accept that characterisation of the policy setting.
The greatest lie told to Australians is that “wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy”.
Politicians and journalists, who should know better, are using a report of models from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (CSIRO) GenCost to try to justify this claim. In recent decades, CSIRO has completely destroyed its once stellar reputation for scientific research. It has now allowed its name to be used for political agendas rather than real science. The underlying assumptions and inputs used for the GenCost model must be subject to scrutiny.
I voiced these comments in support of a Senate Inquiry to do that, which Labor and the greens voted down. What are they trying to hide?
Transcript
Yesterday in question time I asked the minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Senator Wong a simple question: exactly how many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and kilometres of transmission lines were built last month? You’d think that, as the cornerstone of the Labor Party’s policy in government, the answer would be obvious and clear and given to me straightaway. To her credit—and I have a lot of regard for Senator Wong’s capability and think she’s one of the most capable senators in parliament—she said, ‘I don’t know.’ It’s the key policy for the Labor government, and they’re flying blind.
Here’s what I told her in the second question. ‘Minister, the government’s own figures to meet your net zero target show that over the next eight years you need to install and connect more than 40 wind turbines per month, 22,000 solar panels a day, 48 gigawatt hours of batteries and 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines. I pointed out to her that the government is building nothing like that.
The government’s wind and solar pipedream is going to be a nightmare. We are being driven off a cliff by the energy minister, Chris Bowen—
Senator Fawcett: Order, Senator Roberts. Remember to use the correct title.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister Bowen. This is a gargantuan task. This has been labelled by some people as the biggest transition since the start of the Industrial Revolution. It’s fundamental because energy has primacy in our society. Labor cannot tell us the cost of this transition of dumping affordable, lowest cost, reliable, stable and secure energy independent of nature’s vagaries and transitioning to an unreliable, high cost, unstable energy that is weather dependent and not secure. This is madness. But to do it without any costing is doubly mad.
Think about it. We are giving parasitic billionaires and major corporations from around the world—many of them from China—subsidies for installing solar and wind. Those subsidies drive up the cost of electricity, and then we ship our manufacturing to China. China wins in two ways. We have got a National Electricity Market forcing out coal with unfavourable regulations—just driving coal out by making it impossible to feed the market. But it’s not a market; it’s a so-called market that bureaucrats control. It’s a national electricity racket that was introduced by John Howard’s coalition government.
While they’re driving out coal and subsidising solar and wind, they now admit they need to keep Eraring Power Station open. They were going to shut it. They’re now offering subsidies to the owners and operators of Eraring to keep it open, so we’re subsidising them to shut it and we’re subsidising them to open it and then we’re giving $275 relief in power prices to consumers across Australia. Why? Because the energy policy has failed.
By the way, I need to mention that on the night of the incoming Minns government, the new energy minister said that they would have to look at the closure of Eraring. She was laying a signal there—a hint—that they’d keep it open. That’s exactly what they must do because they’re terrified. The Australian Energy Market Operator has identified severe blackouts around December this year. The No. 1 factor that has driven our standard of living for the last 170 years since the start of the industrial revolution has been relentless reduction in energy prices, the unit cost of energy. It’s been a relentless reduction in the real cost of energy. That was until John Howard’s government introduced the renewable energy target and other measures, and since then it has relentlessly increased. Australia has gone from having the cheapest coal and the cheapest electricity prices, thanks to our wonderful coal assets—high-quality, clean coal—to now having amongst the most expensive electricity.
So let’s have a look at the terms of reference for the inquiry that Senator Colbeck has proposed. I thank Senator Colbeck for his motion. It says:
That the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation GenCost 2023-24 report be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report … to explore assumptions and costings made in the report, including but not limited to—
the CSIRO has been criticised for every one of these things I’m about to read out—
a. asset lifecycles;
b. capacity factors;
c. energy type costings;
d. financing costs;
e. fuel costs;
f. augmentation requirements of transmission systems;
g. data standards techniques; and
h. other related matters.
CSIRO has been belted by experts on every one of these. We badly need this inquiry. These are the fundamentals of the biggest transition since the industrial revolution.
CSIRO used to be a highly respected organisation. It was internationally respected. It has now come to mean ‘corrupted science is really obvious’. It lost its way distorting and omitting science to fabricate support for the UN’s climate fraud. The CSIRO has never presented the basis of science which is empirical scientific data—measurements and observations—within logical scientific points that prove cause and effect. The CSIRO has been integral in working with the UN climate change body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in pushing distortions of science.
I have had three meetings with the CSIRO at 2½ hours each and, under cross-examination, it has admitted that it has never said that there has been any danger due to human carbon dioxide. It has admitted that, even though climate change was based initially on global warming claims, temperatures are not unprecedented. It has claimed the rate of temperature change is unprecedented, but the rate of temperature change is almost negligible since 1995. It’s almost flat. That’s according to NASA’s scientific satellite measuring temperatures. The CSIRO gave us not one solid paper to back up its claims. What it did give us was two papers we tore to shreds. Then they gave us another two, and we tore them to shreds. There are 24,000 datasets that I have access to that have been scraped from sites all over the world, including CSIRO’s and BOM’s case studies, and there is not one that shows any change in any climate factor—not one. It’s just inherent natural variation with cycles superimposed. Not only that but the CSIRO has never provided bases for policy and neither has any department or the alphabet soup of energy agencies. They have all failed to answer my question: what’s the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate, on any aspect of climate or on any factor of climate? What is the quantified specific effect per unit of carbon dioxide from human activity? Ocean heat content, air temperatures, ocean temperatures, storm frequency, severity and duration—not one of them can give me any answers on those at all. That is the basis for policy. Without that, you cannot understand or evaluate the options for reducing human carbon dioxide, you cannot track the progress of the measures and you cannot cost the alternatives. This is flying blind over a cliff. Electricity prices in every country with significant solar and wind have increased dramatically. Labor is simply continuing the policy that John Howard started, Tony Abbott continued, Malcolm Turnbull accelerated, Scott Morrison continued and Peter Dutton now propagates by confirming net zero.
Let’s turn specifically to the CSIRO report, GenCost. CSIRO used to be a respected scientific organisation, advancing our country’s technology. I refer to Senator Fawcett’s speech a minute ago. Now the CSIRO is a blatantly political organisation. It’s more interested in pushing the agenda of the government than in providing impartial, evidence-based research. Ideology is infecting most of CSIRO’s work like a virus. The GenCost report is shocking evidence of just how biased this once-respected institution has become. The methodology used in GenCost is so flawed that there are multiple hours of podcast series explaining all of its deficiencies, and I give a compliment Aidan Morrison for some of his work.
Let’s start with the cost of wind and solar. Many people, including some politicians, think GenCost says what it costs for wind and solar to deliver a kilowatt of power today. It doesn’t! It fundamentally doesn’t tell us the cost. GenCost imagines some fairytale dreamtime half-a-dozen years in the future and projects what they think wind and solar will cost, with no accurate, solid assumptions underpinning that. CSIRO even admits that this prediction they come up with is not the actual cost, but this is what policy relies on. CSIRO completely excludes the cost of every single power project up until 2030. They’re free! They’re free, according to this mob.
Just look at the tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission projects assumed to be free: EnergyConnect, $2.3 billion; Marinus Link, $3 billion. All are assumed to be free. Free, free, free! Santa Claus is giving them to us! There’s Central-West Orana, $3.2 billion, and HumeLink, $5 billion. It doesn’t sound like much when you rattle off a billion, does it! There are dozens more major projects.
Let’s look at the pumped hydro that’s assumed to be free. There’s Snowy 2.0, $12 billion plus and counting. That’s not included. There’s the Battery of the Nation in Tasmania, our biggest island. That’s $3 billion. It’s not included. There’s the Borumba pump hydro, $14 billion. It’s not included. There’s the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro, $12 billion. It’s not included. The list goes on and on and on. Tens of billions of dollars is excluded from the cost of wind and solar, but we’ll all pay for it—some people with their jobs when they’re shipped off overseas, some people for whom the cost of living will drive these out of reach.
Almost all of these projects, especially the pump hydro, are only being planned because of wind and solar, yet CSIRO excludes them from the cost of wind and solar completely. It’s like saying a Ferrari is the cheapest car you can buy, as long as you take out the cost of the sunroof, the air conditioning, the wheels, the gearbox and the engine.
Then there are their calculations on the cost of coal. They added an extra five per cent cost to the finance figures with no basis whatsoever. CSIRO just says, ‘Well, no-one likes coal anymore,’ and, whack, a completely unfounded hurdle is added on top. Then there’s the capacity factor. That’s the percentage of time the station is running. It has a huge impact on the calculated cost of power, if you assume a billion-dollar power station is running for only half the time it actually is on and can be on. They’re destroying the viability of coal with lies.
CSIRO also says:
In 2030, we project forward including all existing state renewable energy targets resulting in a 64% renewable share and 56% variable renewable share …
They just assume that we’re going to press ahead with variable renewable energy, regardless of what happens and without any costings. They just assume it’s going to go ahead. It doesn’t sound like impartial modelling to me, because it’s not impartial modelling.
But the people of Australia will pay for this. They will pay for it with their jobs. They will pay for it with their livelihoods. They will pay for it with their family budgets. What sensitivities have been applied for political risk? Policy will almost certainly change and you may have a government elected that ditches false targets. What percentage of chance do they give that? The United Kingdom is abandoning net zero. The Prime Minister has said so. Japan is switching back to coal. It is already using a lot of coal. Germany is scrapping wind turbines to extend coalmines. It is tearing down wind turbines that were installed so that they can mine the coal underneath them. China is producing 4½ billion tonnes of coal. We produce 560 tonnes, and we export most of that overseas, and China is buying coal from us. Indonesia is now the world’s largest exporter of coal. India has well over a billion tonnes of coal.
This report, the GenCost report from CSIRO, isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, yet it’s being used to justify one of the largest destructions of our economy in Australia’s history. Even if you naively believe we need to run the grid on solar and wind, this GenCost report deserves scrutiny and the Australian people deserve transparency. CSIRO has repeatedly shown it is dishonest on climate and energy. We need an inquiry. In refusing or opposing, the government shows it fears its assumptions will be shown to be flawed. If I’m wrong, CSIRO would be vindicated. So CSIRO, if it had any courage, would stand up and say, ‘Bring on the inquiry.’ Thank you, Senator Colbeck. We support this motion.
As the cost of living increases out of control, the number of businesses going broke (insolvency) is on the rise. Each of these insolvencies is a tragic story of people losing their jobs and facing uncertainty about whether they will have money to put food on the table.
Ditch the net-zero policies that are driving up energy costs, cut red tape and make it easier for family businesses to survive. That’s One Nation’s plan!
Transcript
I support Senator Hughes’s motion and agree that the Albanese Labor government has failed to grow the economy and, with that lack of growth, failed to restore Australia’s standard of living. A stable economic environment is necessary for a new business to open and to flourish and for existing businesses to weather the many storms this government has engineered. Labor’s interest rate rises are due directly to Labor’s wasteful spending and energy price inflation resulting from pointless net zero policies. The Prime Minister and Energy Minister Bowen have failed to provide electricity at prices people and businesses can afford, directly driving inflation. Every new piece of legislation in this place seems designed to strangle the last breath out of businesses. Live sheep exports are today’s casualty.
It should come as no surprise that data from ASIC shows there were 1,245 business insolvencies in May 2024. This is a 44 per cent increase on last year and a 122 per cent increase across the life of the Albanese Labor government. To put it simply this government is sending business broke. One thousand two hundred and forty-five insolvent businesses in just one month is not a statistic; it’s a human tragedy. These are everyday Australians who had a go at lifting themselves up, who were employing others in their community and who were paying tax to support the government agenda. Now their businesses are gone along with their ability to provide for their families, free from reliance on the government. Business confidence is down because this government has talked it down with an unending recipe of doom and gloom about global boiling and sustainability requiring reductions in living standards. There’s no hope in this message, just unending misery. It’s a lie. No wonder businesses give up.
One Nation believes abundance is not a dirty word. It’s natural for people to seek abundance and to share abundance. With One Nation, Australians can and will restore prosperity to this beautiful country of ours.
The housing supply and affordability crisis is upon us and debating how we arrived here won’t help.
One Nation’s housing policy ‘looks to the future,’ offering common-sense solutions to help more Australians purchase their own home, while at the same time, reducing rent.
Overview
Lower immigration to sustainable levels to reduce housing demand.
Ban foreign ownership of residential property to increase housing supply.
Allow a portion of your superannuation to be invested in a home purchase.
Ditch Labor’s Housing Future Fund and invest those funds into creating a new People’s Mortgage Scheme, offering 5% deposit and 5% interest rate.
Allow people with a HECS debt to roll their debt into a People’s Mortgage account, improving their ability to obtain and service a housing loan.
Implement a 5-year moratorium on charging GST for new home construction, which will make new homes more affordable.
The Role of Interest Rates in the Housing Crisis
The Reserve Bank understands that slowing down construction is an effective tool in reducing inflation and is doing so knowing it will make the housing crisis.
This is what I mean when I say the Government is “stepping on the accelerator with handouts and government-sponsored construction,” at the same time the Reserve Bank is tightening the reins with higher interest rates.
The result is a shambolic government from Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers.
A shortage of home construction firms is also contributing to the problem. As of May 2024, there have been 2,500 building company bankruptcies | May of 2024 financial year.
These failures are a result of rising material costs, approval delays, high interest rates affecting both the builder and the customer and a shortage of skilled labour. Our immigration policy has brought millions of people into the country, however only a fraction of those migrants are qualified in construction trades.
The Government’s answer involves a set of measures that “promise” many new homes, yet so far, only a few thousand have been delivered and they are mostly homes that were already in the pipeline.
In other words, the Albanese’ Government’s efforts have made no meaningful impact on the crisis.
One Nation’s approach will tackle inflation without relying on interest rate rises. Refer to our inflation policy.
The Role of Immigration in the Housing Crisis
One Nation’s policy to address the housing shortage involves reducing immigration until the housing market stabilises.
This strategy is grounded in logic that if we already have a limited supply of houses and we increase demand faster than new homes can be constructed, it will only lead to a worse housing shortage. Even those who support high immigration should recognise that this approach makes sense.
Anthony Albanese has overseen the arrival of 2.4 million new residents in just the last 2 years, creating a demand for 700,000 homes. With home approvals at just 160,000 per annum, our housing shortage continues to get worse. In turn, the worsening shortage will cause higher rents and higher home prices, putting home ownership or rentals out of reach for many everyday Australians.
Rent controls discourages construction, making the problem worse.
The graph below illustrates new housing approvals against population growth. Under Anthony Albanese’s Labor/Greens government, the number of home approvals has decreased while new arrivals have increased. This trend suggests that without the implementation of One Nation’s housing policy, the problem is going to get significantly worse for everyone currently living here.
The Role of Foreign Buyers in the Housing Crisis
During COVID, with immigration at such low levels, there was an opportunity for a “’catchup” – a period of construction without the pressure of increased demand.
Despite this opportunity, no significant catch-up occurred, yet new homes were built. So where did these homes end up?
Part of the answer can be found in the August 2021 Census, which revealed that one million of Australia’s 10.8 million homes were empty on Census night.
One Nation believes that part of the issues stems from foreign buyers purchasing new housing stock and locking it up, so that it can be sold as “brand new” when values rise. Much of the construction during this COVID period was removed from the market in this manner. The Greens also highlighted this issue: read here.
One Nation’s housing policy includes measures to end foreign ownership of residential and agricultural property, aiming to help Australians secure homes.
Another contributing factor are owners that decide tenants are too troublesome and choose to forgo rental income. This problem would likely be more common among foreign or corporate investors who view real estate as a speculative investment – focusing on fast capital appreciation rather than rental returns.
Why wouldn’t foreign investors pour capital into Australian real estate, given how fast property prices are increasing?
Rising Australian real estate prices were an irresistible target for international and local capital. Additionally, superannuation firms are increasingly investing in residential property, potentially adding to the demand and contributing to rising prices.
Is Short-stay Accommodation Contributing to the Housing Crisis?
The short-stay rental market, such as Airbnb, is often highlighted in discussions about housing. There are approximately 100,000 short-stay properties in Australia, which adds to the 280,000 rooms available in the conventional accommodation sector.
In comparison, Australia’s total housing stock comprises 10.8 million homes, meaning short-stay properties represent less than 1% of the overall market.
The short-stay rental market caters to people seeking holiday or business rentals and is an industry with a finite growth curve. Many short-stay rentals are not stand-alone units. Often, they are converted spaces like garages or spare rooms. These types of properties would not typically qualify as permanent rental accommodation under existing planning regulations.
Many of these properties have always been used for short-stay purposes. In the past, these properties would have been managed by local real estate agents and legacy websites like Stayz. Therefore, the actual number of rental properties removed from the market for short-stay use in the past 5 years, is much less than the 100,000 figure suggests.
While some on the left are fixated on short-stay rentals, it appears to be more an ideological abhorrence of Australians that use entrepreneurship to get ahead.
We Need a People’s Mortgage Scheme!
The Housing Future Fund (HFF) is an Albanese Government initiative to create a fund that invests in mortgages. Currently valued at $10 billion, it is expected to be increased to $20 billion. However, this scheme has not delivered a single new home and is limited to just a few thousand properties per year.
One Nation proposes to turn this scheme into a low-deposit, low-interest Government-backed mortgage scheme for Australians, especially those with a HECS debt. This proposal would help people secure homes years sooner.
One Nation will convert the HFF into a mortgage fund, offering government-backed loans to Australians who fail to meet traditional banking criteria. This is aimed primarily at the three million HECS debt holders in Australia. These individuals, HECS repayments can restrict their ability to buy a home, manage a mortgage or save for a deposit, as their HECS debt impacts their income.
We propose offering People’s Mortgages with fixed terms of up to 25 years at a 5% interest rate, with the option for early repayment, and requiring only a 5% deposit. This is in line with the Government’s own low-income deposit scheme.
Applicants will also have the option to use up to one-third of their superannuation for the deposit, with the condition that the funds must be repaid when the home is sold.
For Australians who have been employed for several years, have a reasonable income and superannuation balance, and qualifies for the first home buyers grant, it’s likely that no cash deposit will be required for an entry level property. Additionally, the mortgage repayments will be comparable to current rent payments.
People’s Mortgages for HECS Debt Holders
One Nation will offer HECS debt holders a simple and straightforward choice:
Continue paying off your HECS debt while managing a mortgage as you do now; or
Roll your HECS debt into your mortgage, extending the repayment period over a longer period. This option allows you to secure a mortgage sooner if your income and eligibility for a First Home-Owner’s grant, along with a superannuation top-up, support it. While this option increases the total cost of your HECS debt over time, it enables you to purchase a home much earlier.
Mortgages will only be issued if the applicant meets the lending criteria, including the ability to make the repayments through gainful employment or a self-owned business.
These mortgages will be administered through an Authorised Deposit-taking Institution (ADI) or approved intermediary, such as mortgage brokers.
Case study: Blake has the average HECS debt of $25,000 and is paying that off over the average duration of 9.5 years. The debt increases every year with indexation, Blake will most likely repay a total of $29885 at $300p/m before being eligible for a home loan. Under One Nation’s low deposit mortgage, Blake can roll the $25,000 debt into their mortgage and pay the debt off over 25 years at 5% interest for a total repayment of $43,800. This will add $146 per month to the mortgage, a much more manageable figure.
For more details on how One Nation plans to make HECS fairer, refer to our HECS Policy.
Suspend Charging of GST to Buyers
According to the Australian, government fees, charges and taxes account for 50% of the cost of a home in Sydney and 32% in Queensland. Housing has become a cash cow to maintain bureaucratic empires and social agendas, making it increasingly difficult for everyday Australians to afford to build their own home.
One Nation policy will strip away red, green and blue tape, allowing tradies to get on with the job.
I have requested the Parliamentary Budget Office cost our proposal to suspend collection of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on new home construction. The policy is straighforward – builders will be able to claim back the GST on all building materials they used in the construction of the homes, rather than passing the GST cost onto home buyers.
This measure will cost $1.4 billion over 5 years and will lead to a corresponding reduction in the purchase price of new homes.
Since GST revenue is collected on behalf of the states, the Federal Government will compensate the States for the reduced GST revenue. This practical measure provides direct assistance and rewards the completion of new, ready-to-sell homes.
Addressing Building Materials Shortages
Amid discussions about building houses, the Prime Minister is ignoring a critical issue: the availability of building materials.
At the same time the Prime Minister is trying to build homes, the Greens and the Prime Minister’s own Net-Zero cabal are obstructing essential industries. These groups are targeting forestry for timber, steel production for frames and supports, and cement manufacturing. Of note, a major ingredient in cement is fly ash, a byproduct from burning of coal for power. Therefore, eliminating coal power will also decimate Australia’s cement industry.
One Nation’s Strategy to Tackle the Building Materials Shortage
Approve the harvesting of plantation timber for the domestic construction industry, with conditions for adequate replanting and regeneration.
Building new, clean steel plants at Abbot Point and Port Hedland to capitalise on Australia’s competitive advantage in steel production. This will lower costs, improve the quality and increase the availability of steel for the construction industry.
Utilise steel mills to provide fly ash for cement production and provide heat for production of ceramic tiles and other building materials.
Promote the development of an Australian hemp industry to produce hemp-based particle board, building bricks and insulation.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Housing.jpg?fit=999%2C553&ssl=1553999Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-08 15:50:002024-08-09 09:22:17How One Nation Will Make Home Ownership a Reality for You!
One Nation advocates for the enshrinement of freedom of speech as a fundamental human right in our Constitution. We are the only Australian political party actively working to integrate freedom of speech into our legal and social framework. Contrary to popular belief, this right is not currently enshrined in the Australian Constitution, though many Australians assume it is.
While the Constitution provides a limited form of freedom of speech concerning political communications, it falls short of the comprehensive protection seen in the American Constitution, where freedom of speech is explicitly guaranteed.
I am calling for a thorough investigation into the necessity and benefits of including such a provision in our Constitution. Such a change would bring an end to governmental overreach and prevent legislation aimed at censoring speech by labelling it as ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ for political reasons.
The press and media are also guilty of suppressing dissenting views that challenge the government’s narrative, and social media platforms are known for shadow banning or cancelling comments that oppose government positions. This was particularly evident during the Covid-19 period of mandates and shutdowns, targeting those who questioned government control.
We must resist any government measures that would further restrict freedom of speech and advocate for stronger protections to safeguard this essential right.
Transcript
I speak in support of this motion from One Nation to enshrine into the Constitution one of the most basic of human rights: the right to free speech. When it comes to free speech, One Nation has your back. Many people believe that free speech is an existing feature of the Australian legal and social framework. It’s not. The High Court has held that there is limited freedom of speech implied by the interaction of several sections of the Constitution, limited to political communication. The extent of this limited right is yet to be fully determined by the High Court. That being the case, this concept of the right to free speech, already enshrined in the American Constitution, would be a worthy improvement to our own Australian Constitution. I want to read from the motion that Senator Hanson has moved in her own name and mine:
That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2024:
The matter of a popular vote, in the form of a referendum, on the matter of enshrining the right to free speech in the Australian constitution, with particular reference to:
(a) an assessment of the content and implications of a question to be put to electors;
(b) an examination of the resources required to enact such an activity, including the question of the contribution of Commonwealth funding to the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns;
(c) an assessment of the impact of the timing of such an activity, including the opportunity for it to coincide with a general election; and
(d) any other related matters.
This is fairly simple. It’s just an investigation and inquiry.
Of course, any alteration to our Constitution must be done with the agreement of the Australian voters by way of a referendum. I know that the Australian people are sick of referendums, particularly since the doomed and expensive Voice debacle that we had to endure and that the Labor government poured more than $450 million down the gurgler on, when it could have been spent on something far more important. Yet ensuring that freedom of speech is a feature of our social and legal landscape would be worth it.
Why do we need it? In Australia we’re significantly overgoverned and overregulated. One area that needs attention is the way that the government use the media to shut down anyone who wishes to discuss any concept that does not follow the government line. In these woke times, governments maintain a strong hand guiding the media into accepting and promoting often truly dumb and in some instances factually wrong propositions. We know that freedom of speech is suppressed because local newspapers and state newspapers rely on funding from advertising from local councils and state governments. It’s the same with the national government, the federal government. If someone comes up with an article that is too much out of the government line, then the governments won’t advertise.
In addition to some factually wrong propositions from federal and state governments, we see propositions that undermine good governance and cede sovereignty, pushing a globalist agenda—ridiculous. Social media platforms have taken on the roles of pseudo fact checkers and censors of material, deleting material that’s deemed inappropriate, even if it’s accurate and is disclosing inconvenient truths. Truth doesn’t matter to government in Australia anymore.
As an example, YouTube recently took down material from my YouTube channel, including material on COVID vaccine or COVID injection injuries that it had deemed medical misinformation. This was unnecessary and possibly unlawful, as some of the information was material placed before the Senate, covered by parliamentary privilege and supported by proof of its truth, fully referenced. It had been up there for six months. Once I started mentioning a COVID royal commission, it’s suddenly come down, and they’ve taken it back retrospectively. It was six months worth of work that this Senate has seen and witnessed. Somehow, political speech from the Senate is censored by YouTube, which is owned by a foreign corporation, meddling in Australian federal politics.
It’s not the first time. This interference with the communication of parliamentary material is potentially an offence, but it’s not covered by any laws simply guaranteeing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should still be moderated, on rare occasions, to exclude poisonous vilification or speech that promotes hate or other crimes, not something that might offend someone. That’s a dumbing down of the Australian population. If anyone’s feelings are hurt—you cannot give offence; you can only take offence. If someone says something in the chamber and I feel offended, that’s my responsibility; it’s not theirs. So we should be stopping this nonsense about someone, feeling offended, being able to shut down the other person.
It’s the speech that considers alternative narratives or theories that deserves protection. This Labor government has done nothing to improve transparency and accountability in terms of government actions. Indeed, in terms of guillotines—the shutting down of debate—we’ve had major bills go through this parliament with not one word of debate. We’ve had major amendments voted on with not one word of debate or question. That’s not democracy. This Labor government has done nothing, as I said, to improve transparency and accountability in terms of government actions.
During the COVID period of government failure, the government of the time moved into a period of hyperactivity, silencing critics and preventing any discussion of problems, COVID injection injuries—of which there were many—and alternative treatments, resulting in tens of thousands of needless, preventable deaths and injuries in the hundreds of thousands to innocent Australians. That was what the Liberal-National coalition did—two cheeks of the same backside.
Of particular concern is the Labor government’s intention to introduce a bill to eliminate alleged disinformation or misinformation, with no identified deciders as to whether the information is based on truth or not. Who cares about the truth? Just shut it down if it goes against the government’s narrative. Who introduced the misinformation and disinformation bill? That’s right: the other cheek, the Liberal-National coalition. Labor introduced it. They didn’t put it to the vote. The Labor Party came along into government and they introduced it again—the same bill, pretty much.
This misinformation and disinformation bill must be opposed. It represents government censorship at its worst. It’s a control agenda that’s occurring in so many Western countries, and I compliment Tucker Carlson for his courage in speaking the truth. It’s happening largely to the Anglophone nations: Britain, Canada, New Zealand, America and Australia—and, to some extent, in Europe, but it’s largely the descendants of the British Empire or Commonwealth.
Usually, we’d rely upon state or Commonwealth legislation to resolve this issue of ensuring freedom of speech. Yet, since Federation, this has not been done properly by either of these jurisdictions, state or federal. It’s now high time to ensure once and for all that this protection can be established. It can be done. We need this inquiry. By our call for a committee to inquire and report to the Senate, assessments on content, process, resources required, timing and any other matters related may be brought back to the Senate for consideration.
Freedom of speech, if enshrined within the Constitution, will provide greater real freedoms to all Australians. Let’s go through some of the freedoms. We’ve got freedom of life, freedom of belief, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of travel, freedom of exchange and freedom of initiative. Of all of those freedoms, freedom of life is arguably No. 1. But they don’t get off the ground without freedom of speech. Speech is first. These freedoms are birth rights, universal rights. Yet we now have to come to the government and ask permission to speak freely or we get censored. That means it’s not a right anymore. It’s something that we have to get permission from the government for, whether it be Labor or the Liberal-Nationals.
Think about this: the most remarkable transformation of human civilisation on this planet occurred in the last 170 years. Prior to that, our ancestors were shuffling around and scratching in the dirt. Now look where we are. Human progress has come because of human creativity and human care. They’re inherent in people. People want to do things better, more quickly, smarter and more easily, so someone comes up with an idea. Through freedom of speech, they share the idea—and this happened so much in America and Britain in the 19th century, and even in the 18th century. Ideas were shared: one person came up with an idea; another person, by sharing it, built upon the idea and made it more magnificent; and then someone else came along, took their idea, made an initiative out of it and transformed human civilisation.
Freedom of speech is a matter of life and death. It’s a matter of human progress. I support this motion.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/E99c868VqQ4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-08 15:45:002024-08-08 18:02:51One Nation Pushes to Enshrine Freedom of Speech in the Constitution
I am alarmed with the direction superannuation in Australia has gone. With $3.5 trillion in super funds being influenced by unions, these funds are increasingly being used for social engineering and political purposes. Millions of dollars has been donated to the Labor Party to support their renewable energy agenda and other Labor policies.
Some funds have even leveraged their shareholdings to seek board positions at companies like Origin Energy, aiming to influence corporate decision-making. It’s startling to see super funds involved in social engineering rather than focusing solely on member benefits. The ALP-linked industry funds are now acting as fundraisers for the ALP, having contributed $13 million dollars of members’ money to the party in the lead-up to the last election.
An important question worth investigating is whether the mismanagement of these funds could be impacting wages and driving up the cost of living.
Transcript
Superannuation has become an institution in Australia, one that has not been reviewed for almost 15 years. The superannuation pot of gold is now valued at $3.5 trillion in an economy that is valued at only $2.6 trillion. While I say ‘pot of gold’, slush fund may be a better description—in the hands of some funds, anyway. Industry super funds are distorting the economy and using their huge wealth to invest politically rather than in the best interests of their members. The renewable energy monster currently devouring our economy and our beautiful countryside is substantially funded by industry super funds. These political investment decisions are made by boards that contain up to five members drawn from the union bosses that fund the service. Investment is made in a way that supports the Australian Labor Party’s political agendas. That is clear.
Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, the man who had a fair bit to do with starting superannuation, has warned that super funds will start asking for board seats from companies in which they take a substantial position so they’re union controlled. Two investment funds tried to take over Origin Energy last year and led the company toward sounder investment strategies. Australian Super drastically increased a stake in the company to vote down the proposal. According to an article in the Financial Review:
… super funds’ decarbonisation commitments could push them to put directors on boards, if their other attempts at engaging with companies to drive down their emissions failed.
Really? Is this the job of superannuation funds now? Social engineering?
Industry super funds may force targeted companies to employ union members or agree to union sweetheart deals. They may force target companies to follow the woke globalist Labor Party agenda, such as DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion. Although, industry super fund CBUS has gone one further and added a B for ‘belonging’, designed apparently to welcome employees who are Arthur one day and Martha the next. Despite two LBGTQIA+ turning into an alphabet soup of debasement, REST are proud to be an ally of Pride Month and all that goes with it. Super funds can afford this non-commercial activity because they have a river of gold and cash flowing into their coffers every year from members who falsely think their super fees are being spent in their own interests. Silly them. In fact, super funds sent $13 million to the ALP in the lead-up to the last election; CBUS alone was $1.5 million of that, more than a tenth.
Direct payment is not the only way super funds are fed back to the unions. Then on to the ALP. Industry funds pay unions to run training programs with very generous payments. It’s not quite a protection racket, but it’s along the same lines. Board members on super funds also receive very generous salaries, which are then sent back to the union and form part of the $17 million paid by unions to the ALP. CBUS, for instance, pays its board members $457,000 per annum each year, which makes REST look positively reasonable at only $165,000. This explains why, during COVID, when the Morrison government made a very sensible suggestion to allow everyday Australians a chance to use just a little of their super to get through COVID, the ALP lost its mind. Their super fund donors were unimpressed with having to give up what turned out to be $80 billion of their 3.5 trillion back to the people who gave it to them. Apparently, pride parades and social engineering don’t fund themselves.
The misuse of funds by superannuation companies raises a serious question: is superannuation reducing wages? meaning there is no direct financial benefit to the worker making the contribution. This is theft. The Grattan Institute has produced data to show that it is, in fact, the worker who pays for this so-called employer contribution in reduced wages and reduced employment opportunities. It’s time for a detailed inquiry into this boondoggle to ensure workers are not losing from this system.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/eArl4e41g_c/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-08 15:40:002024-08-08 18:02:02Super Funds Being Used for Political Agendas and Social Engineering
The wind and solar billionaires are going to leave a trail of environmental destruction across the country. Coal mines, which are unfairly demonised, have to pay an environmental bond before they put a shovel in the ground. When the mine is finished, that money is used to restore the land to how it was before the mine was ever there. Unlike coal, wind and solar do not have to pay environmental bonds.
We’re going to be left with a toxic wasteland of old wind turbines and toxic solar panels that no one will have the money to clean up. Wind and solar aren’t going to save the environment, they’re going to ruin it.
Transcript
CHAIR: Thank you. We’ll take it on notice. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?
Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money.
Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.
Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?
Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?
Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?
Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?
Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.
Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.
Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?
Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.
Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—
Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.
Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.
Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.
While travelling through North Queensland, I held a number of events including in Mackay, Bowen and the Whitsundays. This is what I had to say to attendees on the current issues in Australia before we went into Q&A sessions.
Transcript
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, thank you for being here and thank you for being awake and thank you for making an effort for our country Australia and for our state Queensland, and for the region of Bowen and the Burdekin electorate, and also the Mackay electorate and the Whitsunday electorate. We have got fine candidates who are doing their role as citizens, so thank you so much.
I want to make a confession. Well, before I make the confession, I used to work at Collinsville because when I graduated from university with an Honours Degree in Mining Engineering, I decided I better go and learn something. And I’m serious. I went to the underground mines, mostly underground, one open-cut mine Queensland, New South Wales around the country to get practical experience. And one of them was Collinsville number two, which has since shut. It was an underground mine, so you know about that.
So I used to come into Bowen on some weekends because we used to work five-day weeks in those days. My confession is that I used to vote for the uni party. Now, the uni party is a name we’ve coined because the Liberal National Party and the Labour party are almost identical in policies. There is a reason why I generally put the liberal nationals ahead above the Labour Party in my preferences because the Labour Party, if you stand up, you’re gone. In the liberal party, you may be gone. A few LNP do stand up on a few issues, but they recently demoted who I think is their best senator, to an unwinnable position. That tells you everything you need to know about the LNP, apart from looking at David Cristafulli, who stands for nothing. So we have got to get away from the uni party. I used to vote for the Liberals, used to vote for the uni party. Not anymore. Put the Greens last Labour party, second last and Liberals generally third last. That way my vote if the minor parties don’t go in, gets to the LNP rather than the Labour Party.
I’ll be mentioning one of the gods of the LNP in my talk. He’ll probably come up several times. I thought he was wonderful, then I got the facts. And I’ll show you some of those facts. Our constitution is the only constitution in the world in which the people voted for it before it came into place. Did you know that? This is the only country where the people voted for the Constitution? Who are the only people who can change the constitution? The people. Who elects the government? In our constitution, we have a constitutional lawyer here who’s taught constitutional law at universities. In our constitution, the people are the supreme sovereign entity. Did you know that? The reason we’re in a mess under the leadership of the Uni party, the LNP and the Labour Party with policies almost identical is because we as a citizenry have fallen asleep and I include me in that, I said we.
When I started waking up, I started getting active and I’m going to show you what we did, but I want to compliment the candidates, Julie, Kylie with Andrew for standing up because it’s what we need to do. Government has three roles. Protect life. Both parties have taken lives in the last four years, both parties have taken lives with abortion bills. The second role is to protect property. The man I’m going to raise repeatedly because it just so happens that the facts show that I will repeat his name repeatedly is the number one thief for property rights in this country and it will stun you when I tell you who it was.
The third role of government is to protect freedom. The Uni party, liberal Labour, and liberal Labour have stolen freedoms not just in the last four years, but for decades in this country. Won’t you consider our Queensland? Consider Australia. Look at our resources. The UN itself has said second to none in the world, second to none. We have wonderful people. We’re starting to become less educated because of our indoctrination rather than education in schools now, but we’ve still got very talented people, people willing to have a go. We’ve got the world’s largest market to the north in Asia. We’ve got huge potential.
And yet look at us. We’ve got people in Mackay sleeping in tents, but now that you mentioned it, we’ve got them in Cairns, sleeping in tents under bridges, in cars, working families sleeping in cars, going home at night to their kids in a car, good working families sleeping in tents, caravans, getting moved on by councils. Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rocky, Maryborough, Bundaberg, Gladstone, city of Brisbane, city of Ipswich, Beaudesert. And a lady’s mouthing to me, Bowen. This is disgraceful. We should be the world’s richest state. We’ve got huge debt under both parties.
So I want to talk first about housing. The great Australian dream of owning your own home is increasingly out of reach for many Queenslanders as housing supplies dwindle, housing demand increases and construction costs soar and people are sleeping in tents. We visited some yesterday. We visited two lots in Mackay, one out near Marion-
Speaker 2:
Out in Julie’s electorate.
Malcolm Roberts:
… Julie’s electorate.
Speaker 2:
And then the one in the city.
Malcolm Roberts:
In the last five years, homelessness has increased 22%. That’s under liberal labour Uni party, tents, cars. People are trapped in the jaws of unaffordability. Think about why. Now, Julie talked about the details of our housing policy, I’m not going to go there. I’m going to talk about why. 1.9 million residents with visas in this country before COVID all wanting houses, 1.9 million foreigners. When Anthony Albanese came in, he said, “We will increase migration until we catch up with pre-COVID.” In February last year, 2023, the residents numbered 2.3 million. We were well above already.
But it gets worse than that. We have in the last financial year, 737,000 arrivals in this country, three-quarters of a million arrivals. The net migration, when you remove those who left, 518,000 additions, half a million. When you look at the ratios, that builds a need for 200,000 houses. We are in a housing crisis and Morrison increased their immigration and then Albanese drastically increased immigration.
Why did they do that? I’ll tell you why. Because under the latest stages of Morrison’s prime minister ship under the Liberal National Party and under the Anthony Albanese’s prime minister ship, we have been in a per capita recession per person, and our economic growth is negative, negative. We are in a per capita recession. How do you hide that? Because you don’t want to be the prime minister who’s blamed with a recession, but what you do is you bring a whole lot of people in, bump up the GDP, we’re not in recession barely.
But when you’ve got people sleeping in tents with their kids under bridges, that shows you just don’t care. They don’t give a damn. They just want to make sure they don’t get tagged with the recession. Since John Howard, he was the first to raise immigration dramatically, he almost doubled it and put us on the big, big immigration path, the big Australia path. It got raised from him to almost double under Turnbull and Morrison and then it’s quadrupled under Anthony Albanese. And Peter Dutton has said he will reduce immigration back to very high levels. Insane. I’m saying we need to not only stop migration, we need to, and migrants have been wonderful. I’m part migrant.
We need to actually send some of the resident visa holders home until we catch up with the housing and the infrastructure. So we need to reduce demand. I’m going to get onto some of the key policies that until every Australian in a tent has a roof over their heads, we shouldn’t let foreigners buy houses. New Zealand and Canada have recently said that no foreigners can buy houses in their country. We’re the holdouts. We want to stop foreigners owning houses, residential real estate in this country.
But I also want to talk about a couple of other things. We want to offer the option for a personal super to be invested in primary residence. It’s your money. And then on the sale of the house later down the road, decades down the road, the proceeds are restored to the super fund. What’s wrong with investing in your own house? It’s real estate. Second and thirdly, we want to create 5% mortgages. Ditch Labor’s Housing Future Fund. Sounds wonderful. They said it’s $10 billion. What they didn’t tell you and the media didn’t tell you was that it’s $10 billion put in a fund and then the return on investment of that fund is invested in houses. Could be $300,000, $300 million. That’s it. It’s not a $10 billion fund and they didn’t tell you that three lots of bureaucrats come with that future fund. It’s bullshit.
So we want to replace that with a new people’s mortgage scheme, which will pump out 5% mortgages, low interest rate mortgages to people who qualify. Then the next one. Some people have done what they think was the right thing and gone to university and developed a HECS debt. And then when they go to the bank to get a housing loan, they can’t get one because they’ve already got the HECS debt. So what we’re saying is allow people with a HECS debt to roll the HECS debt into their people’s mortgage scheme debt so they’d have one debt that will take longer to pay off, but at least they can get into a house and start paying the damn thing off. So that’s unique to us too.
Julie mentioned we want to review and revise taxes on homes. Currently, 45% of a new house price is tax. Did you know that? Those figures came from the Real Estate Institute in New South Wales and the federal government, government fees, taxes, charges, duties. So we believe One Nation believes in the great Australian dream of owning your own home and we are alone in saying and having policies that will make it easier for Australians to own homes.
Let’s move on to energy. When coal reigned in this country, we had the cheapest electricity in the world. Did you know that? Now as a result of John Howard’s policies and subsequent labour ramping up of those policies, we have the world’s most expensive electricity. We have coal coming out of power state, coming out of mines, going straight into a power station and the electricity costing 25 cents a kilowatt-hour. We take that same coal, put it on a train for a couple of hundred kilometres, transship it at a port onto a boat, send it what? A couple of thousand kilometres to China, Asia, another boat, another port, another handling fees, and then they put it on a train to their port, to their coal-fired power station and they produce electricity and sell it at eight cents a kilowatt-hour.
Why is that? Because they don’t have the subsidies that we have for solar and wind. Your price for electricity, our price for electricity is so damn high because of the solar and wind subsidies that we are giving to parasitic globalist corporations and giving to parasitic billionaires in this country. We’re stealing your money. That’s all it is, for a dream. We’ll talk more about that.
It is a fact that as nations around the world increase their proportion of solar and wind, their electricity price does what? Increases dramatically, not just increases, dramatically. Warren Buffett the most astute investor ever in the world. You know Warren Buffett, ma’am. He says wind turbines are a terrible investment. Subsidise wind turbines, wonderful investment. We have large solar and wind complexes, industrial complexes in the north and west of Queensland and in the western Victoria that have rapidly been built and no thoughts been put into it. They’re not even connected to the grid, but they’re getting money for income for producing electricity or having the ability to produce electricity. Who’s paying for that lack of electricity? We are. So always the people pay.
And then we’ve got subsidies going to these people. We’ve got subsidies for a Eraring power station, Australia’s largest coal-fired power station. We’ve got subsidies going to solar and wind to destroy Eraring. We had commitments to shut Eraring early. Now we’ve got subsidies for Eraring to stay open. It’s funny, but it’s bloody sad. This is an indictment on the LNP in New South Wales and federally and an indictment on the Labour Party in New South Wales and federally. And if you notice the men’s government, the Labour government in New South Wales, it took over a couple of years ago, on the night of the election, the incoming energy minister, she said, “About this Eraring, we might have to think about shutting it.” They know it’s stupid. And then two years down the track, “Oh, we’re going to keep it open.”
And then while we’re subsidising Eraring to shut through solar and wind and we’re subsidising Eraring to stay open now because it’s desperate and the Australian energy market operator is saying that they were forecasting massive blackouts in New South Wales at the end of this year. At the same time, they’re bringing in, and they’ve got in, energy price relief for your electricity bills. It’s insane. So they’ve done it all of their own. And every major climate and energy policy was introduced by which party? Which party? LNP, correct, not the Labour Party. LNP introduced them, Labour comes in and turbocharges them. Then Liberals get in, they introduce more policies to shut down our electricity sector and Labour Party comes in and turbocharges them. Safeguard mechanism, one of the first things Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese did. That was introduced by Hunt and Turnbull very quietly in 2015 in December. It is dishonest.
Coal, nuclear, and gas, and hydro made us independent of the weather. Until then, humans relied upon the weather. And if the weather blessed them, we flourished. If it didn’t, we died. It’s that simple. Coal in particular made us independent. Before coal came along and coal-fired power stations, what did we use for lighting at night? Whale oil, the best friend of the whales is coal. Before coal came along, what did we use for heating and cooking? Wood. I have yet to see a piece of wood that doesn’t come from a tree. So we chopped down trees. The area of forests in the developed continents is now 30% greater than it was a hundred years ago. Thanks to coal. The best friend of the forest and the trees is coal.
But coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro have another great friend, that’s the human race. Our human, if you think about it, we were scratching around, basically most of our ancestors were scratching around in the dirt trying to find food for their kids 170 years ago. 200 years ago, a king or queen would’ve lived shorter, more dangerous, more unhealthy, less comfortable, more rigorous life than someone on welfare in Australia today. That’s a fact. Look at this, everything around us. Everything in this room, including the clothes you wear, is a result of steel, which is comprised of coal and best energy comes from electricity.
Low cost energy, and the prices of electricity and energy generally were on a relentless decline from the start of the Industrial Revolution until 1996, 1997 when the UN Kyoto protocol came into existence. And John Howard said, “We won’t sign it, but we will comply with it.” And as a result, he introduced a renewable energy target. His government stole farmers’ property rights, which is the worst thing a liberal can possibly do. There’s nothing more sacrosanct other than life. He put in place the national electricity market and those things are destroying our agricultural sector and destroying our manufacturing sector and destroying our electricity sector. So we had low cost energy, and when energy decreases in price, it increases productivity, which increases wealth and prosperity, which decreases our cost of living, which increases our standard of living. That transformed our human civilization. And in one fell swoop, John Howard and the liberal party reversed that and started artificially increasing energy prices. And now we’ve got amongst the world’s highest electricity prices. So electricity prices are vital for human progress, vital for productivity.
I was a boy in the Hunter Valley. I grew up in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley and I used to cycle the high school from the bush, we lived out in the bush, past the Alkan Aluminium smelter. It came to Kurri Kurri in the Hunter Valley, look it up because of cheap coal-fired electricity. That’s what’s fundamental for aluminium. It’s gone because of these policies. And when you increase the energy price, it cascades right through the economy. Everything becomes a multiple and all your prices rise. It’s not just Morrison’s high inflation due to his massive spending during COVID mismanagement, inflation. It’s also due to high energy prices and that’s what continues it. We are the largest exporters of hydrocarbon energy, coal, oil, natural gas. They’re the hydrocarbons. We’re third largest in gas now. We used to be the largest, we’re the third largest because America under Biden has passed us in gas exports even though it produces carbon dioxide. So when you add our coal and our gas, we are the largest exporters.
Other countries, China, Asia, India use our coal in abundance. But we can’t use it here because of a lie from the United Nations that is pushed by the Uni party, the liberal labour Uni party. Oh, by the way, I didn’t mention that six years after he was booted from the office, and I was a massive fan of John Howard, a massive fan of John Howard until I started doing my research under climate fraud. Six years after he left office in 2013 in London, he gave an address. And in that address he said, “On the topic of climate science, I am agnostic.” He didn’t have the science. But weren’t we all told that the science is driving his policies? It’s a lie. And I can go in question and answer through the many ways that I have proven that’s a lie by holding people accountable in parliament and in the energy agencies and the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology. But I won’t go into that now.
What I can tell you as a summary is that there is no scientific or policy basis for the climate bullshit. There is no policy basis, no scientific basis, no policy basis for the energy policies that are destroying our electricity sector. None. I’ve asked many, many agencies, not one can give me it. And yet the LNP and the Labour Party are together pushing this down our throats. There are some billionaires behaving like parasites. Do you know what parasites do? They suck the blood out of you and they kill the host, whether it’s a tree or it’s a human. These billionaires behaving like parasites include Holmes a Court who funds the teals, who push subsidies for solar and wind. Is there a conflict of interest there?
I know of no one getting a check from a coal company for opposing this. I know of no one getting a check from a NOAA company opposing this. But here we are, the accusers of that, these lies are involved in a scam, a conflict of interest looking after a billionaire. Have you heard about that in the media? Not more billionaires acting like parasites. Twiggy Forrest. And what did he do in the last couple of weeks? He said his green schemes are falling over and he’s withdrawing them, putting a lid on them for the interim. Then we have Mike Cannon-Brookes, another billionaire. Ross Garnaut is hoping to be a billionaire. And then we’ve got parasitic major corporations, mainly Chinese who are getting the money for our solar and wind. And who pays for all of this? We do.
Chris Bowen, the Ministry of Madness, he says that the transition to solar and wind that’s currently underway, it’ll never be completed. It’s the biggest transition since the Industrial Revolution. And it’ll need this, 40 massive wind turbines every month for eight years at a cost of $12 billion. Now there’s one crane I’m told by Steve Nowakowski, who was agreeing and converted when he realised the environmental damage of solar and wind, he converted. He’s now opposing them and doing a marvellous job, Steve Nowakowski. He said to his knowledge, and I haven’t checked this, there’s one crane capable of assembling wind turbines. It takes two days or so to assemble the crane, then two or three days to assemble the wind turbine, then around two days to dismantle a crane and move it to the next site where you go through the same again. So it takes what? What’s that?
Let’s be generous. Six to seven days to instal a wind turbine. We need 40 massive turbines every month. It’s bullshit. It’s impossible. We need 22,000, these are Bowen’s figures, 22,000 solar panels every day for eight years. A nine kilowatt home solar system the government says we need, that’ll be about $8,000 each, nearly 4 million homes. It would cost $32 billion total. It’s impossible. 22,000 solar panels every day. Come on. So that’s a total of $44 billion for a potential maximum of 54 gigawatts of power. Then the power’s intermittent. On average you get 12.5 gigawatts out of that capacity of 54 gigawatts.
They have a low capacity utilisation. If you build a power station for, coal-fired power station, for a hundred megawatts, it’ll pump out a hundred megawatts. Click, click, click, click, click, click, click. It’ll go down every now and then for schedule maintenance. So it has about 95% or higher availability. And you can plan the outages. Solar and wind their capacity is 23% of nameplate capacity. Instal solar and wind, you’ll get 23 megawatts out of it. On average. On average. But it gets worse. On peak hour early in the morning and late at night, it’s 10% capacity. So that means you need 10 times the number of solar and wind that you’ve installed. You need a thousand megawatts to get a hundred megawatts. And then the life cycle of solar and wind components is about 15 years. So in the life of a coal-fired power station of 60 years, nuclear power station may be a hundred years, you’ll have to change the solar and wind four times. That’s why they’re called renewable because you’ve always got to replace them.
So can you see the huge cost? But then think about this, the huge footprint because you need vast quantities of land and you need 28,000 new kilometres of new transmission line, 28,000. And those costs according to the CSIRO, nonexistent because their costs are forecast at 2030 and all the transmission lines would be built then so we don’t need to include the costs in solar and wind. They’re only being built for solar and wind. We are driving off a cliff with packed in a double-decker bus with Anthony Albanese, Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull, Chris Bowen at the steering wheel.
Speaker 3:
Is that such a bad thing?
Malcolm Roberts:
We’re on the bus! Then you’ve got to add firming costs because wind and solar are asynchronous. They’re inherently unstable. Coal, hydro, gas, oil, nuclear, all synchronous, stable. Then you’ve got to have batteries for when the sun doesn’t shine or you’ve got to build a coal-fired power station for when the sun doesn’t shine. This was all forecast 20 years ago, and labour and liberal are paying no attention. And then on top of that, you’ll be dependent on the weather. And that means very expensive. And who pays for all of this? Who? We do. And then you find coal, not only subsidies for wind and solar, but you find coal is penalised with massive artificial regulatory burdens and solar and wind have to be taken first and coal shut down. That destroys a coal-fired power station. Before everything was fine, it was all humming along.
And then get this. Labour Party’s policy is uncosted. Uncosted. Richard Miles, the Deputy prime minister has refused repeatedly to rule out that the total cost of transition will be more than a trillion dollars. Yes ma’am. What? Dutton says it’ll cost around $1.3 trillion or more. He says he’s being conservative. An independent study says it’s 1.5 to $1.6 trillion for nothing, for a worse system and unreliable high-cost system.
The CSIRO, when John Howard was prime minister said this. This is John Howard’s words, The CSIRO said, quote, “that the only reliable source of base load power was fossil fuels and nuclear.” Why the hell did he bring in the national electricity market? And favours require force the use of solar and wind. So let’s find out why.
Who benefits? First of all, let’s talk before we go into who’s making money out of this. This is going to be very detrimental. The whole of Brisbane’s water supply if some of these proposals goes ahead with solar can be contaminated with toxins, not only Brisbane, Toowoomba, Ipswich, Ben Lee, Logan, Gold Coast. Not here. They’re not going to pump the water up to here. But your own local developments may do that. Wind causes people physical sickness, scientifically proven. Infrasound. It sends businesses broke and families bankrupt. And where do these businesses start manufacturing? China, which produces four and a half billion tonnes of coal. We produce 560 million tonnes of coal, one-eighth. See that in the media? India has ramped up its coal production to be about 1.3 billion tonnes, which is more than double what we produce. This is insane. They’re saying they want what gave us our standard of living. And I certainly agree with them.
They’re killing our competitive advantage solar and wind. Solar and wind are killing our lifestyle, killing our security, killing our future. And I want to compliment Andrew for talking about the 120 byproducts of coal that are in every day use in our society. People are now waking to the solar and wind killing our environment, killing koalas. There are instructions on how to kill koalas to instal a wind turbine, killing our birds, killing our trees, killing our bird breeding lakes in north Queensland, killing our forests, killing our creeks, killing our prime farmland, killing our food production.
And then you’ve got to ask the question, what is clean energy? Right now, you and I are all exhaling carbon dioxide. We take it in at 0.04%. It’s called a trace gas because it’s bugger all of it. There’s just a trace of it. We’re inhaling that and we’re increasing it by more than a hundred times. And we’re exhaling it at four to 5%, 100 to 125 times what we took it in as. You’re all polluters. It’s bullshit. It’s essential for life on this planet. This is being done by the liberal labour Uni party, the ones that I used to support until I woke up. And this is what woke me up. This is what woke me up, realising this. Why are we doing it? Because the United Nations wants to keep Australia in the Paris Agreement, which Tony Abbott signed and the following year, Malcolm Turnbull ratified. Liberals.
The United Nations wants to keep Australia in the Paris Agreement because developed nations are called on by the United Nations to finance the developing nations. China is a developing nation. We’re going to finance China and compensate these developing nations for past emissions and damage due to the climate. Has anyone seen any damage due to climate? Have you? There isn’t any.
So the United Nations is all about revenue raising because it currently relies upon grants, donations from member countries. They want their own revenue and they want half a trillion dollars a year, 500 billion. This is a uni party sellout of Australia, Australian taxpayers and Australian industry. The journal, supposedly scientific journal, it’s pretty crappy nowadays. It’s sold out to vested interests. But the journal nature said that rich countries like Australia would owe middle income countries an estimated 100 to $200 trillion by 2050. Australia’s share would be 5%, which is five to $10 trillion. How about that? Did you know that? The United Nations wants a 5% sales tax on technology, fashion, and defence firms plus a tax on hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas? Did you know that? Did you know that Tanya Plibersek has raised the policy in parliament of a fashion tax, tax on clothing because they don’t want you to buy so much clothing to feed this mob? Did you know that? Just a few months ago.
Neither the Labour Party nor the LNP, the uni party, nor the Greens, nor the Teals have any kind of plan for doing this.
The solutions with one nation are to consider humans, the environment, and national security and to tell the truth and base our decisions on fact. Our number one policy on energy is to use the cheapest energy that is safe, reliable, responsible. That’s hydro, coal, nuclear, gas, oil. Restore competitive federalism, so the states provide a competitive basis. That is a fundamental tenet of our constitution. It’s been trashed by John Howard bringing in the national electricity market, which is a national electricity racket because it’s not a market. It is controlled by bureaucrats who make the rules to favour solar and wind. So we want to embrace coal. We never have let it go. We want to continue to embrace coal. We want to amend the national electricity market so it’s fair and realistic for all sources. Stop artificially inflating coal-fired prices. We want to end the national electricity market. It’s bullshit.
We want to develop new mines and coal-fired power stations. I’ll talk more about that in Q&A if anyone wants. We want to continue to embrace nuclear. We say to Peter Dutton, welcome to the debate on nuclear. We’ve been advocating that for years. Let’s debate it. We have 25% of the world’s uranium reserves. We export them from South Australia, maybe the territory too. We want to repeal the legislative nuclear ban. Support nuclear. We want to base decisions on facts, data, and truth, not lies and emotion. Thirdly, we want to embrace, continue to embrace true hydro, not pumped hydro. That’s garbage generally with very few exceptions, it’s garbage. But real hydro, Tully, Hells Gate, we’ve been pushing them for years. We want to phase out taxpayer funded subsidies for solar and wind. Large scale, immediately stop. Small scale houses, keep going with the subsidies until your contract runs out and then stop. We are tired of subsidising other people’s electricity for a bogus scam.
We want to force rehabilitation on land that solar and wind are heavily impacting. If you’re a coal mine and you uncover so much land to dig the coal out from underneath it in an open cut mine, you have to pay a bond for every hectare that’s disturbed. And at the end of the life of the mine, when you rehabilitate it, you get the bond back, which seems fair to me. Solar and wind, no bond. Just walk off after collecting billions in subsidies, walk off the land and leave it to the farmers to clean up at their cost. So we’re saying no new subsidies. Well hell, why should we have new subsidies when the CSIRO and Labour and Liberal are claiming that solar and wind are the cheapest? It’s bullshit.
We want to amend the national electricity market rules so that energy price reflects the true generating cost in the market value. But I want to get rid of the national electricity market. We want to prohibit solar and wind on prime agricultural land, pristine, natural forest and where there’s a fire risk. We want to prohibit offshore wind turbines. Prohibit them. They’re complex and dangerous. We want to put in place a solar and wind bond. We want to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. There is nothing simpler. We want to end net-zero. It’s a United Nations scam. We want, listen to this one please, we want to use our valuable resources for Australia first. That’s what we want. Now I’m finished. I’m three minutes over time, but we’ll be taking questions.
Julie asked me to talk about the power of the cross bench. Who knows what the cross bench is? Okay, most people. Thank you for being open and honest and saying no, you don’t know. That’s great. That’s the best way to learn. What happens with our federal parliament, it has two houses of Parliament. It has the lower house, and whichever party has the majority forms government. That is currently the Labour Party with less than a third of the vote. So our government doesn’t reflect the country, but that’s the way it is. Okay. So the government has the majority of members in the low house. They do most of the introduction of bills, most of the policies, most of the decisions for governing the country.
And then they produce bills that come up to the Senate, which is proportional representation, which is a fairer system of representation because it means that if you get, say a third of the vote, well hang on, that’s not a good example because the Labour Party’s in government with a third of the vote. But strictly speaking or theoretically speaking, if you have a third of the vote, you’ll get a third of the members in the lower house. Okay? Sorry, you might not get any like Nigel Farage got four and yet had a bigger vote than the Liberals in Britain who got a fraction of his vote. So the direct representation through electorates, you might get 30% in every electorate and not get one electorate in the lower house. But in the Senate you’ll get 30% of the senators because it’s proportional representation for the state. So the Senate is a fairer system and what they do is they’re supposed to protect states’ rights.
So Pauline and I are pretty rare because we fight for Queensland. So what happens then is you’ve got a break on the government and you’ve got a better representation to represent the population as a whole. In Queensland, the Labour Party abolished the upper house, the equivalent of the Senate, as Julie said, 102 years ago. So whichever party has the majority in the lower house just pushes everything through. And the Labour Party has done you no favours. The liberal party under Chris Ofili is promising to do very little. I liked Campbell Newman. Last time when he was in power, he got things done and he was punished for it, punished most severely by his own senior members of parliament in the liberal party. That’s fact. They’ve told me. Liberal members of his parliament told me that.
So we need a balance of power. So there’s no upper house to put a brake on the parliament. So that means rather than let whichever party is in the majority in the lower house, be bullying everything through, we need a brake. So if you get liberal party, say with more representatives than the Labour Party, but not enough to have half, then they won’t form government other than with the cross bench. It’s called a minority government. They will need the votes of the cross bench, the independents, the one nation, the cadders between. So they need those votes. So with Pauline and me, the Liberals under Turnbull, because we had a balance of power part of the time, they would come to us and we would say, “Go to hell with that until you modify these things to make it better for Australia.” And if they didn’t do it, they didn’t get our vote. And if they did it, they got our vote. They quickly worked out which ways up.
So we don’t have the power to govern, but we have the power to put the brakes on the bastards. That’s fundamental. That’s the balance of power. That’s what Julie was talking about the cross bench. So we’re not asking for the power to run the state. We haven’t got any chance of getting that many people into parliament in the near future. But we want, and we’re seeking for your benefit, the power to put the brakes on the bastards. That’s what we mean by cross-benchers. If we have three or four cross-benchers, we will be able to stop the bastards whether it’s the Liberals who have more than Labour or Labour have more than Liberals.
This is my response to the Government’s Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024, which aims to ban vaping in Australia.
As a result of the measures already taken by the Government to ban vaping, organised crime is now moving into illegal tobacco and vape markets with horrific consequences.
This is not about selling our children a bergamot herbal vape; rather, it’s so they can sell vapes laced with hard drugs to get our youth addicted and reclaim the market share that vaping has cost them.
I’ve always maintained that the safety of vapes depends on the quality of the device and the liquid it contains. A more effective regulatory approach would have been to support a future Made in Australia by allowing Australian companies to produce legal, quality-tested and regulated vapes. This should include measures to keep these products out of the hands of children and to impose the same usage restrictions as those applied to smoking.
Instead, the Government is doing the bidding of the pharmaceutical industry, which views vaping—and medical cannabis which vapes often hold—as a threat to their profits and power.
This Bill will backfire badly.
Transcript
I’m speaking to the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024. I note the government circulated 11 pages of amendments just an hour or so ago. The large number of amendments indicate the process of consultation was flawed, and concerns from senators have caused fundamental changes to this bill. Is it in, out, in or out? I hope the government learns a lesson from this and in future honours the spirit of genuine consultation. I hope it honours the committee process to produce a bill that doesn’t need last-minute, wholesale changes.
I note the bill amends the poison schedule, to downgrade vapes from schedule 4 to schedule 3, and adds conditions to their use in that listing. When I tried to do exactly the same thing—to downgrade medical cannabis and add conditions to that listing—I was told, ‘That’s a very strange thing to do,’ and my bill was not supported, in part because of that. Now they’re doing the very same thing that they said was very strange.
In Queensland, vaping products with or without nicotine are illegal unless on prescription. Vapes are subject to the same laws as cigarettes or tobacco products as to where they can be used and the circumstances in which they can be purchased. Queensland law right now prevents children under 16 accessing or using a vape. Personal health and child welfare are rightly the responsibility of the states. Yet, once again, this government seeks to increase its powers in areas where it has no Constitutional authority.
This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and the Customs Act 1901 to limit the importation, domestic manufacture, supply, commercial and private possession, and advertising of non-therapeutic and disposable vaping goods. Over-the-counter sales at chemists will be permitted, and access to children under 18 will be via the Special Access Scheme. There are substantial differences in how possession for personal use and commercial use are handled, yet the bill does not specify this threshold, which will come later in regulation that we haven’t seen. Too much of this bill will come later in regulations. The government is asking us to trust their judgement on a bill that is a litany of bad judgement. The bill defines a vape as ‘anything that’s held out to be a vape’. It explicitly excludes the need for a lab analysis to prove that the item is in fact a vape. Much of the bill goes into the licensing arrangements for importation, manufacture, distribution and possession.
The bill was developed after supposed consultation, yet the government’s reaching out to selected friends in the health industry who share the same commercial interests as informed this bill is not consultation. It’s an echo chamber of self-interest, as the substantial last-minute amendments now prove. Everyday Australians were not permitted to make a confidential submission. Their submissions had to be public and accompanied by a declaration of interests—something very few witnesses felt comfortable doing. In particular, this prevented personal stories of how vaping helped defeat a smoking or other addiction and weighted submissions towards self-interested corporate health providers and charities.
The evidentiary burden of proof in the offences under the bill are reversed. This removes the common law protection that fault must be found before an offence has been committed. While the government may find contesting charges in a court of law tiresome, 800 years of common law rights should not be so lightly dismissed and disposed of. There’s no justification for reversing the burden of proof. For this reason I have submitted an amendment to this bill in the committee stage to restore the presumption of innocence enjoyed by all Australians since our country’s settlement. At section 41P(1), ‘vaping substance’ is defined as ‘any liquid or other substance for use in, or with, a vaping device’. There’s no nuance in the penalties. Possessing a vaping substance carries the same penalty as possessing a vape itself.
People who make cakes, fudges, chocolates, lollies and similar products use the same flavourings as can be used in vape manufacture. Those flavourings shouldn’t be used in vapes. They may be considered safe for stomachs, but not for lungs. Yet they are used in illegal vaping solutions, and I’ve received complaints from bakers that, for this reason, Border Force are seizing shipments of flavourings. Under this legislation, a baker or confectionary manufacturer importing a food flavouring that can be used in vaping must first have it approved for use, despite its being in use for generations, and then obtain a licence to import or possess commercial quantities—of cake flavouring! The importer and probably their largest customers will need to keep records of their use of these potentially illicit food flavourings to ensure that organised crime is not supplied out the back door, with penalties of up to $3.8 million and/or imprisonment for seven years. This is serious business.
I appreciate that this is not the intention of the bill. Yet it is the wording of the bill. I point out that the bill and the explanatory memorandum provide no guidance as to which goods should be permitted and which should not. The minister has complete power to make this decision. So far job losses from vaping prohibition are around 2,000, with 500 vaping stores already closed. The trade in vaping has now moved into the hands of organised crime, with a gang war breaking out in our capital cities to control the illicit vaping trade, as well as the illicit tobacco trade now that tobacco has been taxed to the point of idiocy. The bombings, ramraids, murders and violence so far in this underworld war are on the government, for breaking the government’s social licence to act fairly, honestly and reasonably towards the public. The best interest of the public has been replaced with the best interest of crony capitalist stakeholders.
The last-minute deal with the Greens to add over-the-counter sales at chemists may serve to head off that outcome. Time will tell. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2022 post-market review of medicines for smoking cessation found that 550,000 prescriptions were written for smoking cessation products in 2022. And get a load of this: these included varenicline, from Pfizer, costing $194 a prescription, which in the various formulations was responsible for 2,042 Australian adverse event notifications, including 55 deaths. And there is bupropion, from Aspen pharmaceuticals, which has had 2,100 adverse event notifications, including 22 deaths. The incompetence—does it stop? The post-market review says, ‘The mechanism by which bupropion enhances the ability of patients to abstain from smoking is unknown.’ So, we don’t know why it works. It’s killed 22 people—yet, prescribe it anyway! Just don’t let people buy their own vapes. We can’t have smokers quitting on their own, can we?
The explanatory memorandum for this bill cites data from the Australian secondary school students’ use of tobacco and e-cigarettes report, which states that the proliferation of vaping across the community represents a severe public health concern. Vaping has been associated with severe public health effects relating to adolescent brain development, worsened pregnancy outcomes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. Vaping also carries other health effects such as burns, seizures and poisoning.
Let me deal with the last one first. Yes, illicit vapes do cause internal burns and cause external burns if they explode. They cause poisoning and seizures as a reaction to that poisoning. A poorly made vape will burn and put toxic chemicals into the user’s lungs. Unregulated vaping in the USA caused 28 deaths coming from the use of ethylene glycol, a popular substance in commercial baking. It’s considered safe to be eaten but not safe to be vaporised into the lungs. This illegal use of a legal substance is what caused the popcorn lung syndrome. Illegal vapes can contain thousands of substances we call ‘compounds’ when in legal products and ‘chemicals’ when not in legal products. There are, however, 7,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke—more than are found in a quality vape, not an illicit vape. Telling one side of the story never communicates an honest picture of the truth. It condemns you. It used to be possible to import quality vapes from New Zealand. The Labor government stopped this. Now we have unsafe, illegal vapes. Who knows what’s in them? The TGA’s tweets against vaping were community noted with a comprehensive bibliography of good science that counters their scare stories. I will reproduce those community notes with citations on my website for anyone who wants to educate themselves on legal, safe vaping.
Is vaping a gateway behaviour to smoking or drug-taking? Actually, no; it’s not. On page 8 of the secondary school report, smoking rates amongst schoolchildren have fallen over the last five years. ‘Ever smoked’ is down from 17.5 per cent to 13.5 per cent. ‘Smoked in the past week’ is down from 4.9 per cent to 2.1 per cent—more than halved. This was in a period when vapes were readily available. Vaping is clearly working to reduce smoking rates. This is what has the quit smoking industry worried.
The UK government’s periodic data review titled Nicotine vaping in England: 2022 evidence update found that 98.3 per cent of children who had not tried smoking did not try vaping. This means any increase in vaping rates is either in replacement of smoking or in conjunction with smoking. This data is in contrast to the secondary schools report which found that past month vaping alone was at 15 per cent. Let’s have a look at that. The study covered vaping as a generic class, including e-cigarettes and herbal vapes, which are a large part of the vaping market. Despite the effort put into this study, no attempt was made to analyse the vapes consumers were actually using, and no firm conclusion can be drawn as to the presence of nicotine or any other regulated substance.
The other study the government cited, Australian secondary school students’ use of alcohol and other substances, is alarming. It showed that 22 per cent of secondary school students had used alcohol in the past month, 10 per cent had used alcohol in the past week, and four per cent were engaging in risky drinking. Why aren’t we worried about that? What hypocrisy to introduce the world’s harshest legislation on vaping and ignore the elephant in the room: teenage drinking. Other drug use is down. Figures for ‘used in the last month’ show black market cannabis use down from 8.1 per cent to 6.6 per cent, hallucinogen use down from 1.1 per cent to 0.8 per cent, MDMA use down from 2.1 per cent to 1.1 per cent, pharmaceutical opioid use down from 1.9 per cent to 1.4 per cent, and cocaine use down from 0.8 per cent to 0.6 per cent. These small reductions are more significant than they appear. With 1.5 million Australians in the secondary school age group, every 0.1 per cent of reduction in hard drug consumption means 1,500 young Australians are not getting addicted to hard drugs. Across all types of hard drugs, the figure is over 50,000 lives saved from the misery of hard drug addiction.
The scare campaign that vaping is a gateway to smoking and to hard drugs is fraudulent and designed to cover up the reverse, because the reverse is true. The committee did look at the use of vaping as a smoking cessation tool and concluded the evidence was inconclusive. So there is no reason to save vaping on that account. Poor judgement indeed.
In their deliberations, the committee gave a thought of time to the quit smoking industry, which is funded at $500 million across forward estimates—half a billion dollars! This does not include the financial benefit of fundraising. That half a billion dollars is just the government’s contribution, yet quit smoking rates have been stagnating across the Western world. Firstly, that’s because the few people who still smoke have the money to afford smoking, want to smoke and will continue to smoke. Secondly, there are people for whom the current industry of gums, patches and financial blackmail is just not working. Some people have found that, where these other measures did not work, vaping did work. These are the people who will, no doubt, be forced back to smoking as a result of this bill. Imagine all those extra smokers to keep government revenue rolling in—all those extra smokers to keep the ‘quit smoking’ industry and taxpayer money for years to come. The financial impact statement for this bill doesn’t mention the increase in revenue from smokers being forced back to smoking. I imagine it will be substantial.
Another failure in this bill is forfeiture. The easiest way to control vaping in schools is to allow teachers to seize vapes when they see them. That provision is not in this bill. Seizure is limited to commercial quantities seized with a court order or any good ‘seized by the control of customers at the border’. The one thing this bill could do to help control adolescent vaping is to allow teachers to seize vapes, and it doesn’t do that. I foreshadow my second reading amendment calling on the federal and state governments to sort out jurisdictional issues and give teachers the power to confiscate and destroy vapes brought into schools without a prescription.
As a result of measures to ban vaping, organised crime is moving into the illegal tobacco and vape market with horrific consequences. This is not so they can sell our children a nice bergamot herbal vape; it’s so they can sell vapes laced with hard drugs to get our children hooked and to take back the market share vaping has cost them. I have said all along that vapes are as safe as the vape and the liquid inside. A better idea is to provide for a future made in Australia and allow Australian companies to produce legal, quality tested, regulated vapes and then ensure these are, firstly, kept out of the hands of children and, secondly, subject to the same restrictions on use as smoking.
I look forward to the government monitoring the outcome of this hasty, incomplete bill closely and acting quickly if the outcome is not as expected. I think the outcome will bring horrific consequences, so please monitor this for the sake of our children.
Join me and Michelle Wilde, your One Nation Candidate for Clayfield, for this FREE community forum on Queensland’s Crime Crisis!
🗓️ Friday, 9 August 2024 🕒 6 pm to 10 pm 📍 Hamilton Hotel, 442 Kingsford Smith Drive, Hamilton
Queensland has recently been labeled ‘Australia’s Crime Capital,’ with nearly 300,000 residents affected by crime in the past year alone. The numbers are staggering: 58,479 assaults, 49,490 break-ins, and 18,210 car thefts—making Queensland’s crime rates 12% higher than New South Wales, despite its smaller population | https://senroberts.com/qld-crime.
This is an opportunity to share experiences and concerns with us and fellow residents.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Michelle_CrimeCrisis_D1_V2_EventsGraphics.jpg?fit=1080%2C1080&ssl=110801080Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-02 11:35:352024-08-02 11:35:39Community Forum in Hamilton