CSIRO doesn’t have climate change evidence

, ,

Transcript

[Marcus Paul]

Around this time every week, we catch up with One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, good morning to you.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good morning, Marcus, you have got a hectic morning this morning, I hear.

[Marcus Paul]

Always busy, which is just how we like it, but look, I’ve got the next six, seven minutes to chat away with you, which I’m really looking forward to today. I know you’ve been doing a lot of travelling, haven’t you? You been…

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, we’ve gone from Brisbane right through to Cairns. I’m actually sitting in a hotel room in Cairns, and we’ve been listening to people along the way. It’s been fabulous. A bit rushed, but very good.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, why are you doing this tour again?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Because we’re getting the word out on my exposing the fact that the CSIRO has never produced any evidence for our climate policies and renewable energy policies.

We’re just getting that word out through the media around Queensland.

[Marcus Paul]

And how has it been received? I mean, I know you’ve been from Brisbane to the Sunny Coast, Maryborough, Rocky, Mackay, Townsville, Cairns, Toowoomba.

I mean, you’re a lucky man, travelling through all these beautiful parts of Australia.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I am, indeed, and we look forward to New South Wales being us pretty soon once the borders are reopened again.

[Marcus Paul]

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But no it’s been very well received. People know in their guts that there’s never been any evidence, scientific evidence to these policies that are destroying our country, Marcus, and they’re just so pleased to see someone actually exposing this rubbish.

[Marcus Paul]

Now I’m gonna talk very soon with the New South Wales MP down in the Murray region, Helen Dalton. She is–

[Malcolm Roberts]

Oh yeah.

[Marcus Paul]

Helen is a regular on the programme, much like yourself. She’s been screaming out, screaming and really unfortunately not being had a lot of attention paid to her.

She’s copped a lot from politicians. They’ve tried every trick in the political book to silence her. She wants a water register.

In other words, she wants politicians and others like herself to have a register that’s openly publicly available where people can say exactly how much water interests they have and that should also include national companies, foreign multinationals and everybody.

She wants more accountability on water. And look, she’s had a hard time trying to get this thing through the Parliament. She’s gonna try again for a register this week. It’s very tough.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes and we’ve been calling for exactly the same thing for a couple of years now, Marcus. It’s definitely needed. Pauline has been calling for it as well.

We want full transparency, full openness so that people can see what’s happening to their water. And you know, what we’ve seen is in the last week, just at the end of last week, we saw the Water Minister, Mr. Pitt come out and big headlines were generated.

The biggest change, to the Murray-Darling basin in 10 years. And then we saw Bridget McKenzie, the leader of the Nationals in the Senate saying, “You cannot take any more water from our communities. The 450 gigalitres will not be coming from our farmers.

Enough is enough. You have taken enough.” And that’s very clear, Marcus. Yet the bloody report actually recommends quote, “work with the States to accelerate planning and delivery of the 450 gigalitres SDL water acquisition.”

This is insane. We’ve been along the same path for a couple of years now. But what the Nationals are doing is they’re responding to the pressure that we have put on them and they’ve come out now, initially they rubbished us, then they realised they couldn’t stop us because we have the data.

Then they went quiet and now they’re coming out to pretend they embrace what we’re saying, but they’re not doing it real–

[Marcus Paul]

All they–

[Malcolm Roberts]

they’re doing it in lies.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, they need to. I mean, it’s always- excuse me. I’m very sorry. It’s the first time

[Malcolm Roberts]

Bless you.

[Marcus Paul]

I’ve sneezed for ages, anyway. Hay fever, time of the year. Look at the end of the day, the problem’s always been, as you would know very well, Malcolm,

Since water has become scarce and we are a country where we do have droughts, there’s a light bulb moment that’s gone off somewhere and they thought, you know what, we can take advantage of this capitalism at its worst, and we’ll commodify water.

Well, ever since water became a commodity, something to be bought, sold and traded, that’s when the rot set in and you’re right, particularly for the Murray-Darling basin, in particular for my New South Wales listeners, we know it’s our country’s food bowl and the people of Australia deserve damn well better.

Look, I see too the Office of Scientific Integrity, you’ve spoken to Dr. Peter Ridd from James Cook University in Townsville about this issue. Is that right?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes we have, and Dr. Ridd has accompanied us on our travels from Brisbane right through to Cairns. Now he’s gonna join us again this morning.

Every one of the media conferences we’ve done with him. What he has been promoting for a while now is that we need a quality assurance system for the science.

That would then complete the scientific process. We’ve been arguing for an Office of Scientific Integrity.

There is so much dodgy science that’s not science, that’s killing agriculture in New South Wales and Queensland, Murray-Darling basin and its water allocations, international agreements that we’re supposed to be complying with, the so called vegetation protection legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that’s used to strangle development climate change policies, electricity policies, energy policies, forestry policies, coastal land resumptions where they’re stealing land rights from people who own own their houses on the Coast.

In New South Wales and Queensland, farmers lost their rights to use their land. These have all been based on dodgy science and then it’s not science.

So what we want is a proper scientific process that has quality assurance around it because these policies are strangling our country, gutting our economy, and we want this to be done properly with real integrity on the science, Marcus.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, I just wanna move to another issue. Dan Andrews and the prime minister, Scott Morrison, you say, are using competitive welfarism to replace our constitution’s bedrock competitive federalism.

What exactly do you mean by that?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, competitive federalism is where you have the exchange between States. So for example, Joh Bjelke-Petersen removed death duties in Queensland, in the seventies.

And what happened then was people then moved to the Queensland, Gold Coast in order to have their final years there and eventually die there because they would leave more money to their descendants, their kids.

And so what happened then was the other States were losing their businesses, losing their wealthy, losing their retirees. And so they enacted policies as well to remove death duties.

So we had a better and more competitive taxation system because of competitive federalism, competing between the States. It’s not ruthless cut throat competition, it’s finding out the best ways of running the State.

And that was designed by our forefathers, the founders of our constitution. What we have now is sloppiness, and there are several examples of this, but you’ve picked on one right now with Dan Andrews.

He made a mess of his State, he fell over in doing his job.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

He didn’t do his job, and as a result of that incompetence, Victoria is in a real mess. So what happens? The Prime Minister bails him out.

So the people of Queensland, the people of New South Wales, the people of South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory, ACT are paying for Dan Andrews’ lack of accountability and sloppiness and his dishonesty.

[Marcus Paul]

They’re doing that of course–

[Malcolm Roberts]

And that’s competitive welfarism.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, and that’s, that welfarism you refer to, the extension of job seeker payments, even though they’re being tiered now, but it just continues, and the longer that border closures remain in play, well, the longer the rest of the country is going to have to foot the bill for it.

What about Annastacia Palaszczuk up there? Has she be missing in action? What’s happening?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes, she has been missing in action. What people need to understand about Queensland, the Labor machine runs the state. It’s ruthless and it’s not democratic government, nor is it caring and accountable.

And the corruption is flourishing across our State and local government markets, and we’ll be having much more to say about that in coming weeks, but it’s not Annastacia Palaszczuk who runs this state, it is the Labor machine.

Now what they’ve done is they’re missing in action to some extent, because they’ve handed over to the Chief Health Officer who has one priority, people’s physical health.

Well, Marcus, what about mental health? What about economic health? Because as they’re destroying our economy up here, this Queensland Labor machine that is appealing to the media and try to play to people’s emotions and heartstrings, they’re actually destroying our State and they’re not doing this in a humane way.

We have so many examples. Now your programme has led the way in exposing these things, we’ve got so many issues that are treating people inhumanely.

We’ve got kids with broken legs in hospitals, their parents from New South Wales can’t even visit them in Queensland.

We’ve got cancer patients, we’ve got babies in wombs dying, et cetera, and cancer patients not being treated all because the machine wants to be seen to be protecting Queenslanders when the machine is destroying Queenslanders.

If they really cared about people, they would identify the hotspots and ban people from there.

[Marcus Paul]

I mean, look. The other issue of course is you’ve got a lot of hypocrisy going on. We helped a gentleman yesterday who was, who’d been stuck on the Tweed Coast.

His father is in Royal Brisbane hospital. He’s had a massive head trauma, he’s on life support. They’re about to turn it off. He desperately, desperately needed to get to see his father in his dying days along with his sister.

We had to intervene. We had to go cap in hand to Queensland Health and we also spoke to the New South Wales health department and also to the wonderful people in Pauline’s office at One Nation.

We got this bloke across the border, along with his sister and we shouldn’t have to be doing this, we shouldn’t, but at the end of the day, the reason we shouldn’t be having to intervene like this and to expedite these kinds of situations for people is, well, some are getting the red card treatment.

Look at the red carpet treatment, look at the AFL officials. They can come on in, they can frolic, they can have a pool party for God’s sake on the Gold Coast.

Tom Hanks can just rock up whenever he likes, it appears, without having to go into quarantine. There’ll be 30,000 people gathering for the AFL Grand Final and everyday Queenslanders cannot gather in groups of more than 10. I mean for goodness sake.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, you’ve hit the nail on the head and that’s what I’m talking about. It’s a ruthless Labor Party machine up here that does not care about people.

Annastacia, sorry, Annastacia Palaszczuk, one of her predecessors was Anna Bligh. Two weeks before a State election, the machine promised that they would not sell assets.

Within weeks of the election, just six weeks after their promise, they flogged off billions of dollars worth of core assets in this State. It is a Labor Party machine. It’s not Queensland, it is the Labor Party machine that is uncaring and inhuman–

[Marcus Paul]

Well, problem is–

[Malcolm Roberts]

And what the AFL Grand Final should be up here, but we need to treat Queenslanders with respect.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, well, our problem is, and we’ve got to call into Deb Frecklington’s office, I mean, she’s almost, what she’s back down really now because of populism, I guess, she’s supporting Annastacia Palaszczuk. I’ve run out of time, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

See you, mate .

[Marcus Paul]

All right, buddy. Thank you so much. As always good to chat. We’ll talk to you next week, okay?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thanks, Marcus.

[Marcus Paul]

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, as always speaking a good deal of sense on the programme.

/by

Letter to Premier: Repeal the Reef Regulations

,

8 September 2020

Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk

Premier of Queensland

PO Box 15185

CITY EAST  QLD  4002

Dear Premier

Re: Repeal of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 2019

Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef is an immense treasure and multi-dimensional asset belonging to the people of Queensland.

Our beautiful reef is a spiritual asset connecting people with nature’s universal awe and wonder, an ecological asset and an enormous economic asset with vast unrealised potential value in tourism, fishing, research, healthcare, recreation and other activities.  It is a living part of Queensland, a renewable asset for generations to come.

I hope you agree that it is the duty of elected officials to work for the benefit of all citizens within their jurisdiction and that in our country governments have a duty to listen to, understand, work for, and serve the people.

On Monday 27 and Tuesday 28 July 2020 I took part in the Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) inquiry into the identification of leading practices in ensuring evidence-based regulation of farm practices that impact water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef, held here in Brisbane.  I was amazed yet not surprised with the answers to fundamental questions that senators asked on behalf of all Queenslanders.  Among many facts the academics presented to us about the reef, we learned that what some groups say about the reef is incorrect.  Specifically, that:

  • “Cloudy water” affects only the inner reefs being three per cent of the reef and is natural.  Indeed, the portion adjacent to farm runoff is only half that, being 1.5 per cent with the other 1.5 per cent being off Cape York whose coastline is largely agriculturally undeveloped.  The cloudy water effect is natural with no effect from modern farming methods.
  • Targets for pesticides near the reef and on the reef are not being exceeded and results shows there is no need for your Labor government’s most recent reef regulations.
  • Middle and outer reefs are pristine and show no impact from farming.
  • There is no direct evidence that dissolved nitrogen is having any effect on inshore coral reefs and certainly no effect on the middle and outer reefs;
  • There have been no measurements of coral growth rate since 2005. That’s fifteen years with no data and the question this raises is – what is the basis for the Labor government’s regulations?
  • Over recent decades farmers have made massive changes to farming practice, yet academics say there has been no impact from these changes and that leads logically to the conclusion that farming is having no discernible impact on the reef. Thus, there is no need for the Queensland Labor government’s reef regulations.
  • The cost of the Queensland Labor government’s regulations to each farmer is or will be tens of thousands of dollars per family farm.  There is no benefit to the reef, and it will increase the price of the food we buy.

Secondly, it became clear during the inquiry that the Labor government is not meeting farmers’ needs to be heard and that agriculture seems to be a dirty word to your government.  Neither is your government meeting farmers’ and communities’ needs to be treated with respect and consideration. Farmers are understandably frustrated and angry and have lost confidence in your government because they have never been presented with the empirical scientific evidence needed to justify the changes your Labor government is imposing.

Thirdly, farmers today are environmentalists and not criminals. Farmers know that their main asset is their farm soil and they protect it. Farmers today know that the future productivity and value of their farm depends on the quality of the surrounding natural environment. Farmers know that productive farming and the natural environment have a mutually beneficial relationship, not as you portray, as being mutually exclusive.  Productive farming depends on a healthy natural environment and in turn the natural environment depends on healthy, economically productive farming communities.

These days farming must be internationally competitive, and farmers cannot afford to waste money applying fertilisers if those fertilisers run-off their farm.  Technology today places fertilisers where they are needed and no more.

In giving evidence under questioning, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, AIMS, admitted:

  • “There is lots we don’t know about the Great Barrier Reef”;
  • The term “Consensus Statement” may be misleading;
  • “Climate change is not connected to farming”.

Your Labor government and senior public service bureaucrats seem to operate under the spell of ideologically driven activists including the notorious WWF, who are pushing their agenda to destroy Queenslanders’ rights to use their land and to destroy basic freedoms. These few activists and your government pandering to people who lack understanding of the source of their food are demonising farmers, farming and food production. You and they are doing so in contradiction of the science and in conflict with common sense.

The inquiry was told that the 30 per cent nitrogen reduction target has been modelled to cost $110 million annually for sugar cane farmers and sugar millers. Yet the science shows that this is and will be for no environmental benefit.  That means that all this pain is for no gain.

I hope that you will support my recent call for an Office of Scientific Integrity to ensure the validity of science in making policies that are claimed to be based on science.

I enclose a copy of my report titled Restoring Scientific Integrity, together with a copy of Dr Alan Moran’s report titled The Hidden Cost of Climate Policies and Renewables.  These show that your government’s destructive energy policies are costly mistakes for which the people of Queensland are paying heavily and for which you have no justifiable scientific basis.

I request that you reconsider your farming, climate and renewable energy policies.  Your Labor government’s reef regulations will destroy east coast farming and your energy policies will smash all industries across the state, destroy livelihoods, export jobs and place a frightful burden on all families and on people’s cost of living.

I look forward to your reply and request that your government holds an independent inquiry into the unfounded “science” underpinning its reef regulations, repeals the legislation and apologies to farmers across the state.

Yours sincerely

Senator Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

Photo by Daniel Pelaez Duque on Unsplash

/by

Restoring Scientific Integrity

,

This report provides a summary of the discussions and transcripts from meetings with CSIRO. Additional links in the References section give an in-depth appreciation of analysis of the evidence provided by CSIRO. In the context of seeking CSIRO’s empirical evidence to justify climate policies, I know that CSIRO:

  1. has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous.
  2. admitted that temperatures today are not unprecedented.
  3. withdrew discredited papers that it had cited as evidence of unprecedented rate of temperature change and then failed to provide supporting empirical evidence.
  4. has never quantified any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity.
  5. relies upon unvalidated models that give unverified and erroneous projections as “evidence.”
  6. relied on discredited and poor quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide.
  7. admits to not doing due diligence on reports and data from external agencies.
  8. revealed little understanding of papers it cited as evidence.
  9. allows politicians and journalists to misrepresent CSIRO science without correction.
  10. misled parliament.

Seventeen internationally respected climate scientists from Australia and five other nations verified our conclusions about CSIRO.
In conclusion, CSIRO’s science on the matter of climate for policy making, amounts to a gross misleading of Parliament. The onus of proof is now on Parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, and until that is provided, government must immediately stop wasting billions of dollars on climate policies.

200831-Examination-of-CSIRO-Evidence-for-Climate-Policies

Download

/3 Comments/by

Senator Roberts calls on CSIRO head to resign

, ,

CSIRO has been caught out relying on discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models as the basis for advice to government on climate policy, which is a multi-billion dollar drag on the economy. 

Senator Roberts said, “This is shameful, and I call on the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall, and executive Dr Peter Mayfield, to resign. 

“Both have been complicit in the economically destructive policies based on CSIRO’s misplaced climate research.” 

The controversial, but central claim, that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut, was the focus of Senator Roberts’ cross-examination of CSIRO. 

When CSIRO was asked for evidence of anything unprecedented in climate due to human carbon dioxide, and despite nearly 50 years of climate research, it could only provide the discredited Marcott (2013) paper on temperatures and the discredited Harries (2001) paper on carbon dioxide. 

Both papers wilted under scrutiny, with CSIRO representatives in agreement with the concerns raised, resulting in CSIRO withdrawing the papers. 

Astrophysicist and Geoscientist Professor Willie Soon was scathing in his assessment of CSIRO’s use of Marcott (2013) by saying “Two weeks after publication this paper was completely destroyed and yet, someone as high up as CSIRO trying to say this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, is scientific malpractice”. 

Senator Roberts stated, “Robust science reflecting the highest standards of integrity and transparency should be the core business of CSIRO. 

“How could it be that climate scientists were unaware that the evidence being used for significant policy-making was based on poor quality and discredited scientific papers. 

“CSIRO’s lack of understanding of the papers they cited shows laziness and lack of intellectual rigor. Clearly, CSIRO cannot honestly claim that human activity is causing climate variability.” 

When pressed further regarding the view of CO2 being dangerous, CSIRO were quick to point out that they never claimed CO2 was dangerous, rather that it was politicians that assigned the word danger to human CO2. 

CSIRO also agreed that temperatures today are not unprecedented. 

In a last ditch attempt CSIRO referenced the United Nations’ reports relying on unvalidated computer models, despite freely admitting CSIRO had not done due diligence on any UN work. 

CSIRO also admitted it had not done due diligence on data from the Bureau of Meteorology. 

Senator Roberts added, “In my discussions with eminent international scientists, Professor John Christie stated he has closely examined CSIRO’s Access Models and found them below par, as the projections simply do not match what we actually see in the real world.” 

Professor Christie added, “Climate is so complex, our ignorance of the climate system is enormous, and the myriad of models have not even agreed on a key variable, CO2 sensitivities. 

“The CSIRO models are running overly warm and this has been proven when comparing real data of the last 40 years with the climate model projections.” 

Dr David Evans, one of the world’s top computer modellers, states, “CSIRO climate models should not be used for policy as they are not right yet. 

“The performance of all climate models, including CSIRO’s, are not sufficiently validated and consistently overestimate warming.” 

Senator Roberts added, “It is the duty and responsibility of politicians to base costly policies and economic structural change on robust scientific evidence, not discredited papers and deficient models.” 

Senator Roberts calls for “a halt to all climate policies and spending until credible empirical evidence is provided to justify the spend, and for an Office of Scientific Integrity to scrutinize science used for policy. 

“The onus is now on parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, and until that is provided, government must immediately stop wasting billions of dollars on vested interests riding the climate gravy train.” 

/by

Government caught out not knowing cost of climate policies

,

Yesterday, Dr Alan Moran released a report I commissioned on the cost of climate policies and renewable subsidies have on Australians. Today I asked questions to Senator Birmingham representing the Minister for Energy.

Questions

I commissioned the highly respected economist Dr Alan Moran to review government economic and energy data and to calculate the true cost of climate policies and so-called renewable energy sources. He delivered his report to me last week and a copy has been sent to every member of federal parliament including Senator Birmingham and the Minister for Energy.

Dr Moran’s work cannot be sensibly refuted since he uses the government’s own data that used to be published in a consolidated form until the cost of intermittent solar and wind energy sources became so embarrassingly and devastatingly high. Is the Minister aware that the true cost of climate policies on household through electricity prices is a staggering $1,300 per year?

First Supplementary Question:

Is the Minister aware that the true cost of so-called climate policies and renewable energy on household electricity bills is not the reported 6.5%, but a whopping and devastating 39%.

Second Supplementary Question:

On average your government incentivises $8 billion of malinvestment in green energy projects which results in a net loss of jobs in the economy; analysis based on Spain’s experience indicates with every green subsidised job created, 2.2 jobs are lost. With over 1 million Australians losing their job and the unemployment numbers rising due to COVID19, shouldn’t the government be incentivising job creating rather than job losses.

/by

Climate policies costing every household $1300 annually

,

Climate policies costing every household $1300 annually On Outsiders this morning, Dr Alan Moran release a report I commissioned which analysed the financial impact of climate policies and renewable subsidies on Australian households.

The report, ‘The Hidden Cost of Renewables on Electricity Prices’ uncovers blatant distortions and key facts that are excluded from reporting on the costs of climate policies. Here are the secrets the government has been hiding from you

  • Climate policies account for 39% of your electricity bills not 6.5% as reported.
  • Climate policies are costing you $13 billion a year through higher electricity prices
  • Renewable subsidies and policies cause a net loss of jobs in the economy, as every subsidised “green” job created, 2.2 jobs are lost elsewhere in the economy.

Read the report:

Dr Alan Moran Report – The Hidden Cost of Climate Policies and Renewables

Press Release:

$13 billion hidden cost on households revealed
/by

Dr Alan Moran Report – The Hidden Cost of Climate Policies and Renewables

Australia’s excessively high electricity prices are undermining our economic resilience and competitiveness and cutting our standards of living. Since 2002 Australian governments, in a misguided quest to reduce carbon dioxide, have introduced climate policies at the expense of cheap coal and gas power. Our electricity prices, once the lowest in the world, have become one of the most expensive.

This report, commissioned by Senator Malcolm Roberts, undertakes a comprehensive analysis of climate policies and renewable energy subsidies. Australians will be shocked to know the true financial burden of these policies on households and industry. These hidden costs drive up all costs of living, including electricity, food, water and transport.

In summary, the report states the financial impact of climate policies and renewable subsidies:

  • costs households at least $13 billion annually, or around $1300 per household;
  • accounts for 39% of household electricity bills, not 6.5% the Government typically quotes;
  • causes a net loss of jobs in the economy; with every green subsidised job created, 2.2 jobs are lost.

The full report can by downloaded by clicking the button below:

Dr Alan Moran – The Hidden Cost of Climate Policies and Renewables

View online:

200819-Dr-Alan-Moran-Report_

/3 Comments/by

$13 billion hidden cost on households revealed

A landmark economics report shows that climate policies and renewable subsidies cost Australian households around $13 billion per year, or $1300 per household.

Senator Roberts commissioned economist Dr Alan Moran to use all existing government data to examine, for the first time, the true cost of climate policies.

Senator Roberts said, “Australians will be shocked to know the additional cost of climate policies on our power bills is a staggering 39%, not 6.5% as the government claims.

“Using the government’s own data means that the report cannot be sensibly refuted.”

Dr Moran’s report, The Hidden Cost of Renewables on Electricity Prices, takes an all-inclusive accounting approach, including hidden costs of higher energy prices passed on by business.

Senator Roberts stated, “Governments have blatantly distorted and excluded key facts to keep Australians literally in the dark about inflated costs and future unreliability of our electricity.

“What is abundantly clear is the true cost of electricity would be $13 billion per year less, if cheap reliable coal production was not lumbered with policies that distort the market towards expensive and unreliable wind and solar.

“Artificially high energy prices savage our living standards and undermine our economic resilience and competitiveness, particularly during our COVID recovery.”

Dr Moran found that the weather-dependent wind and solar currently cost the taxpayer $8 billion per year and continue to receive increasing subsidies after two decades.

Senator Roberts added, “In terms of a true market economy renewables still remain unviable after 20 years and have become a parasitic malinvestment on our energy systems.

“These renewable subsidies distort low cost coal-based power generation and increases the wholesale price of electricity from $45.5 per MWh to $92.5 per MWh, at our cost.”

Further scrutiny of the job creation in the renewables industry shows renewable subsidies causes a net loss of jobs in the economy, because every subsidised “green” job created, 2.2 jobs are lost elsewhere in the economy. 

Dr Moran states that “the way forward must involve the termination of all regulatory favours which uniquely reward renewable energy supplies and the cessation of budgetary support for all energy supplies. “Weather-dependent wind and solar will never move beyond being a dependent parasitic infant and the taxpayer will forever pay for those inherent deficiencies.”

https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/dr-alan-moran-report/
/by

Rosemary Moulden, Candidate for Southern Downs

,

Transcript

[Sen. Roberts]

Hi, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts, representing the state of Queensland in Federal Parliament, and I’m with Rosemary Moulden, our candidate for the state election in October, for the Southern Downs electorate in Queensland, Rosemary, tell us a bit about yourself please.

[Rosemary]

My name is Rosemary Moulden, I am the state endorsed candidate for One Nation for the electorate of the Southern Downs, I was a registered nurse and a registered homoeopath, I’ve run small business, and I’m running a beef production farm with my husband at the moment.

[Sen. Roberts]

Tell us why you’re running as a candidate representing people of Southern Downs in the State Parliament.

[Rosemary]

Well, my idea for running for a candidate for this Southern Downs regional electorate, is that I feel that farmers need a lot of support, small businesses need a lot of support, they need less government interference, they need a much more manageable cost of living, costs power is going up which prevents people from running the businesses that they want to run, and are able to run, and the water supply is the big issue, we’ve been through bushfires, droughts, and now the Coronavirus, and this is impacting on everybody’s life.

[Sen. Roberts]

So it’s basically water, Its electricity costs, cost of living and over regulation, you wanna get government out of people’s lives and get back to government serving the people instead of having the people serve the government.

[Rosemary]

Oh, that’s totally correct, you’ve said it well, the regulations that are imposed constantly on the people who are actually producing goods and food and in this district is very, very difficult for all these people to implement, and that’s the thing everyone needs to be able to fulfil their own destiny, and do their own thing with minimal government interference.

[Sen. Roberts]

So why one nation? Why are you standing in One Nation?

[Rosemary]

Well, One Nation as a party has had a very constant leadership, very sensible policies, there’s almost none of them that you could really argue against, they’re common sense, fundamental, and they encourage the independence of Australians and most Australians want to work, and most Australians are happy to pay tax when they’re earning a decent income.

[Sen. Roberts]

We hate getting ripped off though, and One Nation is the only party that speaks up, and has the guts to say what people are thinking.

[Rosemary]

Oh, exactly and people will tell me what they’re thinking, and they’re happy for me to believe them and understand them, and most people now seem to be very receptive to the policies, the common sense policies that One Nation promotes.

[Sen. Roberts]

Right, and being a representative in Parliament means, being a representative of the people, speaking for the people, and pushing their issues for the people, not for the global agenda, like the LNP and the Labor Party has been doing, so, why now?

[Rosemary]

For me, it’s a perfect time, I’ve had a lot of experience with the government regulation farming and even with nursing and all those things that you have to implement in those areas, I just feel like people can listen to me, I can approach people and chat to them and get information from them and actually listen to what they’re saying.

[Sen. Roberts]

And because we’re very free to say and do what we think we need to do, when we listen, we really listen because we take that message into parliament, unlike the other parties, the failed old parties, are told to do what the backroom people do, so when Rosemary says she listens, she listens.

/by

Why I support the Acland Mine Extension

, ,

Transcript

[SEN. ROBERTS] Let’s clear up some recent confusion about One Nation’s position on Acland mine continuing to operate and to reinstate three hundred vital local jobs and 2300 indirect regional jobs. We’ve criticised how a third party representative of Acland approached One Nation in the past.

Pauline reminded everyone of this recently and now that Acland has been willing to give us facts and data and the courts have fixed an injustice I’m pleased to support the mine. Affordable energy and export income is good for our country and Acland will be good for the local area.

I support the decision of the Court of Appeal and the four judges. I support Acland’s Stage 3. Let’s have a look at the timeline of the extension of the operating mine. The Bligh govt gazetted the Stage 3 extension in 2007, thirteen years ago. There was some local opposition.

The project then went to the Land Court where the adjudicator, whose official title is Member, rejected the mine’s application in 2016. One Nation accepted that decision. It then went on appeal to the Supreme Court, where Acland was successful. After that it went to on to the Court of Appeal which included the highly respected Justice Sofronoff and two other judges. Acland won that.

The Court of Appeal, our highest court in Queensland, ruled that the decision by the Land Court Member was affected by “apprehended bias” and was unsound. That means one Land Court Member showing apprehended bias ruled against the mine and hundreds of jobs AND four Supreme court Judges overruled him.

The courts have corrected an injustice within their own system.

[INTERVIEWER] What about the current appeal?

[SEN. ROBERTS] This decision is now on appeal to the High Court thanks to the Labor government continuing to give taxpayer money to The Environmental Defenders Office to interrupt development and jobs.

The Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development issued three advices in relation to Acland’s impact on groundwater over 2014, 2015 and 2016. The 2014 and 2015 reports criticised Acland. It’s 2016 report was positive and said that all matters raised had been addressed.

This report won Acland Federal environmental approval.We want to encourage businesses who are told they have a problem and fix it. This is what Acland did and got sign off from an independent, statutory scientific body that the courts said had access to the same information as any objector.

[INTERVIEWER] What about the evidence given in the Land Court?

[SEN. ROBERTS] Several witnesses on both sides gave evidence that had the appearance of being first-hand but was later shown to be based on hearsay. The Land Court Member in the first decision made no criticism of the objectors who gave such evidence yet was highly critical of one of Acland’s witnesses who did exactly the same [1].

The Land Court Member said that Acland had deliberately distorted the facts and eroded the confidence of the court. The Court of Appeal found that there was no basis to impute this [2]. The Court of Appeal found that at a certain point the Land Court Member was, quote: “animated by an extreme and irrational animus against Acland” [3].

Essentially, he the Member, had taken a negative attitude towards Acland. The court of appeal said at times the Member was combative, argumentative and sarcastic to Acland [4]. In the Supreme Court, it was found that there was no evidence to support the claim that Acland had engaged in pressure tactics [5].

The Court of Appeal found there was no basis for the Land Court Member’s conclusion that Acland had sought to portray objectors as bigoted individuals who were only interested in spreading misinformation [6]. The Land Court Member himself concluded that some of the objectors were ready to make assertions without evidence, make submissions that were scandalous and unsupported by any evidence and as to one witness, having an anti-Acland fixation that overflowed into her evidence [6].

The Court of Appeal found that the Land Court Member’s imputation that Acland had tried to hide relevant information in relation to groundwater impacts was “irrational” [7]. While the original Land Court Member’s decision rejected Acland, it’s obvious that was not sound.

[INTERVIEWER] There was a comment that Acland tried to influence a One Nation candidate?

[SEN. ROBERTS] There was an accusation, since retracted, that our local, grassroots candidate had been wined and dined by the mine. None of these are true. I want to acknowledge Alan Jones’ strength of character in correcting and apologising for the assertion about that candidate. I thank him for that.

[INTERVIEWER] What has led to your support for Acland?

[SEN. ROBERTS] I visited Acland 3 weeks ago and worked through my extensive checklist of things I think needed to be considered.

These include: Safety & health; Water underground; water overland; water usage & supply; land use rights; constitution; aboriginal land (none at Acland); rural land quality & use; farm produce type; environment – air quality, vibrations, reclamation, noise, past performance; town services & rates; jobs and local/regional economy; infrastructure impacts; social impact; bank support; owner’s flexibility and consideration of others’ needs; government fiscal responsibility/debt;

Acland meets all of them. In fact, Acland has extensively changed its mining plan at high cost to itself to meet locals’ needs. I listened to a small group of opponents to Acland.I listened to the local community, business owners and farmers who strongly support this project.

Coal is good for this country and Acland will be good for the local area. I support the decision of the Court of Appeal and the four judges. I support Acland.Let’s get government green tape, red tape and blue tape out of the way, and get shovels in the ground and dump trucks on the road.

In a state with $100 billion of debt thanks to the Liberal-Labor duopoly we need export income and affordable domestic energy for our economic recovery and to secure our state’s future.

References

  1. Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] QCA 184, [82].
  2. Ibid [70].
  3. Ibid [73].
  4. Ibid [74].
  5. Ibid [81].
  6. Ibid [85].
  7. Ibid [90].

/by