Government’s Net-Zero Push Threatens Economy

,

The government wants to drive us off a cliff as we speed towards Net-Zero dictates from the un-elected United Nations and World Economic Forum.

None of it is based on proper data and all the evidence we have is that it will destroy our energy grid and our economy.

With inflation re-emerging, we have to put a stop to the billions being poured into climate policy making Australians pay more.

Transcript

Every time you see a wind turbine or an industrial solar complex, think one thing: your energy prices are going to increase. That’s what those things mean. We’ve been promised that energy prices will decrease, but wind turbines and industrial solar complexes mean higher prices for people, for families, for small businesses, for larger corporations and employers, for the whole community. And they mean trillions of dollars in waste in our economy. In every country around the world, as the percentage of solar and wind has increased, the cost of electricity has increased. That’s a fact—everywhere, consistent. And now, after nearly 30 years of pushing solar and wind, which started with John Howard’s renewable energy target, we see the ridiculous situation of the Labor government offering energy price relief. Why? Because they’re driving up the cost of energy to make it unaffordable; that’s why. So let’s have a look at why. Let’s see why killing the environment in the name of supposedly saving it is costing us so much. Let’s turn to the terms of the motion for an inquiry. So many people want us to have an inquiry, not just rural people but urban people, because they’re worried about the cost. This is what the inquiry is looking into: 

… the importance of ensuring that the National Electricity Grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to new and more dispersed— 

and we’ll talk about that— 

methods of generations and storage, and acknowledging that transition will necessarily transgress on agricultural, Indigenous and environmental lands and marine environments … 

The environment and our productive capacity are suffering. 

I’ll cover some key concerns that are key to the inquiry because the uniparty has not thought about this—from when John Howard, the Liberal Prime Minister, started the renewable energy target to this ridiculous situation we’re in now. By the way, John Howard started that and did three other things, which we might have time to discuss, that laid the foundation for the crippling of our energy supply in this country. Six years after he was booted from office, he admitted that, on the matter of climate science, he is agnostic. He didn’t have the science. This whole thing is based not on science; it’s based on contradictions of science. 

Let’s start with solar and wind. The amount of steel needed per megawatt of electricity from a coal-fired power station is 35 tons. For wind turbines it’s 542 tons of steel. That’s 15 times as much. Straightaway, wind is suffering a cost penalty. It’s a huge cost burden. Then, when you look at the energy density of coal, it’s very high. It’s not as high as uranium, but it’s very high. For solar and wind, it’s very low. 

Secondly I see the government throwing barbs at the coalition, and well it should over aspects of its nuclear policy, but the government is accusing the opposition of uncosted policy. Where are your costs, government? Where are your costs on solar and wind? Where are your costs on solar and wind, Greens? We even see some solar and wind complexes, massive complexes in the Kennedy electorate in Queensland and in western Victoria, not connected to the grid. They have been built but not connected. That’s how much thought has gone into this. It’s bloody ridiculous. 

Solar and wind have an inherently high capital cost plus a low energy density, which means low energy production and very high cost per unit of electricity. Plus the amount of land needed for solar and wind is enormous. And then we see that the average capacity utilisation of solar and wind is 23 per cent. That’s less than a quarter of what the nameplate capacity is. Now we see the latest figures just released on wind, which show that it’s 21 per cent. That’s one-fifth of the capacity. What does that tell you? For a given capacity of a coal-fired power station, you’ll need a certain capacity of solar and wind. Multiply that by four, because you’re getting less than 25 per cent. Multiply it by five in the case of wind. Five times makes it prohibitive. Four times makes it prohibitive. Then think about this: at peak hour, when we need maximum electricity, the average utilisation and the average capacity is 10 per cent, which means that, to get the equivalent of that coal-fired power station, we need 10 times the solar and wind capacity—10 times. Then, for sizeable periods, we have the sun not shining brightly because of clouds or we have the wind drought. That means we need a further multiplication to make sure we can store up enough in energy and batteries. But the batteries to store that amount of wind and solar energy have never been thought of, never been considered and never been developed. It’s impossible. The cost if we don’t have them will be blackouts and outages in hospitals, businesses and family homes. 

Plus there are the transmission costs. Transmission costs, many years ago, used to be 49 per cent of the cost of the electricity bill. I don’t know what it is now, but it’s certainly substantial. Solar and wind have to be located a long way from the major metropolitan areas, which means straightaway that transmission costs are even higher than for a coal-fired power station, which can be located close to the metropolitan areas. Then, because of the dispersed nature of solar and wind, we have even more transmission lines. Then, because of the capacity factor that I just mentioned, we have even more transmission lines. This makes it prohibitive, not just in terms of the installation of solar and wind but also in terms of transmission lines. Plus, the transmission lines will barely be used because of the capacity of solar and wind not being utilised. And then we have the 15-to 20-year life, at best—12 to 15 years more likely—of solar and wind industrial complexes. That means that over the life of a coal-fired power station or a nuclear power station, they have to be replaced four times, so multiply the cost again by four. What have we multiplied it by so far? We’ve multiplied the cost by five, then by 10 and now by another four. Yet the CSIRO considers not one piece of that puzzle—not one piece. They say that it’s all sunk cost; just ignore it. 

That’s why solar and wind can compete. And they still need subsidies. Then you’ve got to add batteries and pumped hydro. Pumped hydro itself is an admission of failure. You cannot have pumped hydro without a disparity between peak hour prices and off-peak prices, and that’s due to the failure of the grid and solar and wind. And then we need firming, another cost, because coal, nuclear and hydro are stable, synchronous power supplies. Solar and wind are asynchronous—unstable—so they need firming. And they need backup gas or backup coal because solar and wind are unreliable. There’s a doubling. Look at the multiplication that we have got there. 

None of this is included in the GenCost report from the CSIRO. It assumes no transmission cost because they’ve already been built. That’s rubbish. We need far more new transmission lines. We have an inherently higher cost from solar and wind, plus low capacity, plus regional, plus dispersal, plus backup, plus stabilisation. Think about this: for a business, you need a stable, reliable, low-variation input. When variation occurs, it costs enormous amounts of money. At industrial and manufacturing plants, farmers are using backup, so they have to pay twice for their electricity. We also have a huge footprint in terms of land. Solar complexes and wind turbines use far more land and are far more scattered than a concentrated coal-fired power station or a nuclear power station. They’re taking up huge quantities of resources. The resource footprint of solar and wind is enormous.  

We have agricultural land being sterilised. We have poisons and toxins potentially going into the Brisbane water supply, into their drinking water—lead, cadmium—which feeds Brisbane, Beaudesert, Gold Coast, potentially Toowoomba, Ipswich, Logan and other areas in the south-east of Queensland. We also have the future cost yet to be added—Snowy 2.0.  By the way, when they first did the costings of Snowy 2.0, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership and poor leadership, they forgot about the transmission lines. They forgot to add the transmission lines. Whoops! We better add a few more billion to that. Now look at it. It was originally slated for $2 billion. We could see this, and I’m not an energy expert. We could see it when Malcolm Turnbull first released it. We told them, and no-one took any notice. Now they’re putting in all these additional costs, and Snowy 2.0 is heading for $14 billion and perhaps $20 billion—if it moves! This is not about having an alternative energy supply; it’s about less energy and control of energy. 

We also have Mr Albanese and Mr Bowen, ‘Blackout Bowen’, talking about us being a renewable superpower. It means economic and environmental suicide, resource sterilisation, and displacement of Indigenous. No costings—a huge catastrophe! We’re talking about billions of dollars and impacts worth trillions of dollars. We must have this inquiry. They’re building in a high-cost overhead and a huge environmental legacy. When some of those farmers who are looking at the money now—some aren’t selling out, but some are selling out because of the money coming in—think about the environmental legacy. No bonds. The energy company owning the wind turbines and the solar complexes can just walk off and leave it. There’s no requirement to fix it. Farmers will pay for that. They’re already paying in many cases, as are rural towns, with the slow thrum, thrum, thrum of infrasound, which is proven harmful to humans. So they’re killing the environment to save it. We’re seeing human progress being reversed. 

The No. 1 message from the last 170 years since the industrial revolution started was that we have a higher standard of living and all the benefits that brings because of a relentless reduction in energy prices. What we’ve seen since John Howard come to power is a reversal of that. As energy prices increase, productivity falls, wealth falls and prosperity falls. We see a reversal of human progress. So what if we spend billions on solar and wind, what if it costs our economy trillions of dollars—and it will—and what if China does not? What happens then? Now do you get what’s going on? Now do you see it? 

I want to turn to two other points. As I said, John Howard introduced all the problems we’re seeing now: the Renewable Energy Target; the stealing of farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN Kyoto protocol; and the National Electricity Market, which is really a national electricity racket. He also introduced an emissions trading scheme as policy—not as fact, but as policy. That’s a carbon tax. He was the first major leader of a major party to have that. The CSIRO has never provided any empirical scientific data and logical scientific points that prove the need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO admitted that to me when I held them accountable, and they gave me three presentations, each 2½ hours long. In the first presentation they admitted that they had never given the advice and had never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut. In the second presentation they gave me, they admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented; they’ve happened before—many, many times. In fact, the scientific term for periods of high temperature is ‘climate optimum’, because they’re beneficial for humanity, for civilisation and for the environment. The temperatures are not unprecedented. 

The second point is that I’ve asked many government departments in this federal government for their basis of policy. To have a basis of policy you need to have the impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on some climate factor. No-one has given us that. We have amassed 24,000 datasets on climate and energy from around the world, from legally scraped websites and research institutions like the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, and we’ve never found any change in any climate factors at all, so there’s no basis for policy. You need that quantitative impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on a climate factor so that you can then study the alternatives, if you want to get rid of the carbon dioxide production. You’ve got to have that to track progress, but there’s none of that. There’s no basis for policy. We are flying blind. We’re heading for a cliff. 

Then we see there’s no environmental impact statement for the use of solar and wind—none at all. What impact is the energy we’re taking out of the wind going to have on our climate? What impact is it going to have on the natural environment? Yet they say that 0.03 per cent of the carbon dioxide is coming from humans, and 1.2 per cent of that from Australians. No impact quantified—the absurdity is enormous. And who will pay for all this mess? We, the people. You are foisting this on the people. We need an inquiry now. (Time expired) 

/6 Comments/by

Government Crack Down on Petrol and Diesel Cars

, ,

If you enjoy your petrol or diesel car, the government is trying to make sure you won’t be enjoying it for long.

Looking through this word salad I got from the Department, the reality is the government is placing fines on manufacturers who sell too many petrol and diesel cars. Australians prefer cars that are useful for a weekend of camping, spacious enough to fit the whole family, and capable of doing long road trips without frequent refuelling or needing to stop to recharge.

The government thinks you’re enjoying your cars too much and is going to forces manufacturers to progressively phase them out, leaving only useless electric vehicles available.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Can I turn to cars and utes, as mentioned by Senator O’Sullivan. Car makers must comply with regulations that you are about to introduce. They must also comply with customers’ needs. My understanding is that the demand for sedans—for example, a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic—is decreasing, and the demand for the corresponding SUV—which in the case of Toyota would be a RAV4 or a Honda Civic—is increasing dramatically. The SUVs are heavier, they’re more utilitarian, but they’re preferred. But they chew more fuel and they produce more carbon dioxide—which to me is not a problem, but anyway. How does that affect the manufacturer? On the one hand they have a government that says, ‘Decrease the size of the car, the weight and the fuel efficiency.’ But customers say, ‘No, do the opposite.’ The customers don’t think in terms of carbon dioxide because they know it’s crap.  

Ms Purvis-Smith: As I mentioned in a previous answer, manufacturers are able to make commercial decisions as to what their fleet looks like. The standard looks at their whole fleet. There are a range of ways that manufacturers can meet the standard. I think Mr Kathage went through this before. I’m not sure if you were here. He could go through that again. If they get credits in one year they can hold them over to meet debits they may get in a following year. They can also trade credits. They can look at the fleet, change the fleet and make commercial decisions about what they import into the country and offer consumers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before Mr Kathage does that, perhaps you could tell me: if customers want SUVs over sedans, will that company be penalised? 

Mr Kathage: I can point you to appendix A of our impact analysis, where we set out the sales volumes of various types of vehicles. Your question is actually quite difficult because, as Ms Purvis-Smith mentioned, there’s actually quite a lot of things that vehicle suppliers can do to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell and their fleet overall. The first thing I’ll mention is that there are changes to the vehicles themselves that they can make—improving the aerodynamics, changing the drive train— 

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. But an SUV compared to a sedan—they can make improvements on both but the SUV will chew more fuel and is heavier—full stop, end of story.  

Mr Kathage: That’s right. So one of the features of the policy is to include a few flexibility mechanisms. The first one is to include two targets. One target is for passenger vehicles and a higher target for light commercial vehicles. The second flexibility mechanism in the scheme is to adjust the limit by weight. So you might have a Toyota Kluger, for example, which will have a particular mass in running order. Therefore, the target for that vehicle or the fleet of vehicles—that weight—will be adjusted. The third thing is that in any given year a vehicle supplier might bring in too many vehicles that are too polluting. They’ve got two years after that point to bring what’s called their ‘initial emissions value’ down to zero. So they do have some time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Looking at electric vehicles, for example, this policy, these regulations, are to make petrol and diesel vehicles less attractive and to make electric vehicles more attractive. That’s clearly what’s going on. But the efficiency of resources in electric vehicles is quite low, because the vehicles are inherently heavier, as Senator O’Sullivan said—needing heavier brakes, more resources; heavier suspension, more resources; heavier components all through, more resources. So we’re actually driving an economy to use less efficient vehicles and less efficient use of resources. That doesn’t make sense to me.  

Mr Kathage: I’m sorry; what was the question? 

Senator ROBERTS: The question is: are you aware that that’s happening? 

Mr Kathage: I’d probably say the purpose of the new vehicle efficiency standard is to improve the efficiency of new vehicles. It’s not to drive a particular type of vehicle or particular type of outcome, except for reduced emissions. That’s the purpose of the policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: You talked about reducing emissions. Have you done any work on the life cycle production of carbon dioxide from a diesel and a petrol vehicle, compared to the electric vehicle— 

Mr Kathage: We have— 

Senator ROBERTS: Particularly right through the mining sector as well, because there are extra resources that need to be mined for an EV. 

Mr Kathage: Yes, we have. We included some evidence in our impact analysis, which is now published on the Office of Impact Analysis website. Section 4.2.1 sets out a range of different estimates that have been made. The first one is from our own Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics, which finds that while manufacturing an EV may produce more GHG emissions than an internal combustion engine, that is more than offset after about one year if the vehicle is charged from renewably sourced electricity—that is, home solar—and two years if charged from the grid using a mix of electricity generation sources. In that section—I won’t read it all out—we do have, I think, four other sources that support the same contention.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an assumption there that they’ll be using renewables—solar and wind. That’s a big assumption. Thank you, Chair. 

/5 Comments/by

One Nation’s Policies Can Fix Australia’s Inflation Crisis

,

Australia’s real wages have collapsed to levels not seen since before 2010, wiping out 15 years of hard-earned pay rises. Both the Labor and Liberal governments have fueled this crisis.

While the government wastes billions on net zero projects and supports foreign companies, inflation continues to rise.

The solutions are simple: cut subsidies to foreign-owned, net zero parasites and use Australia’s oil, coal and gas for our benefit. Let farmers freely use their land to grow affordable food and adopt One Nation’s housing policies to get Australians into houses. Only One Nation is putting Australia first and has the policies to bring inflation under control.

It’s time for the government to stop looking after their mates and start putting the country first.

Transcript

If you feel like you’re going backwards, you are. Inflation is running out of control and way too high. Wages haven’t caught up to cost-of-living increases. When adjusted for inflation, Australia’s real wages have collapsed to a level not seen since before 2010. That means that government caused inflation has wiped out 15 years of hard-earned pay rises. The government has its foot on the accelerator now, making it worse, while the Reserve Bank is stomping on the brake for mortgage holders. This coalition motion claims $315 billion of Labor government spending is unhelpful in the inflation fight. The coalition’s $508 billion spend on its mismanaged COVID response was just as unhelpful. That created the inflation that Labor is now prolonging. The Liberal-Labor uniparty cannot fix the cost-of-living crisis when both are committed to net zero insanity, making inflation worse. While government subsidises foreign-owned, Chinese-dominated companies to put up environment-destroying wind and solar complexes, inflation will continue. While farmers are restricted from using their land to grow fresh food, inflation will continue. While government crushes small business and lets multinational companies get away with economic murder, inflation will continue. While 40 per cent of the cost of building a new house continues to be taxed, inflation will continue. 

The solutions are simple: cut the subsidies to the foreign-owned, net zero parasites, and use Australia’s abundant oil, coal and gas reserves right here for the benefit of the people in this country. Let farmers be free to use their land to cheaply grow the world’s best food so Australians can afford to eat. Finally, adopt One Nation’s housing policies that will get Australians into affordable houses. Only One Nation policies will put Australia first and bring inflation under control. To the Labor-Liberal uniparty, stop looking after your mates and start putting the country first. Adopt One Nation’s policies on housing and immigration. 

/by

Digital ID, Independent Media and the Future of Conservatism in Australia

,

I recently joined Melinda Richards on TNT Radio to discuss pressing issues facing Australia today. I emphasised the importance of independent media.

Our conversation turned to the Digital ID bill, which echoes the Australia Card proposal from the 1980’s—a proposal Australians firmly rejected.

We also discussed the erosion of conservative values within the Liberal Party and the urgent need for strong leadership to uphold these conservative principles.

Transcript

Melinda Richards: I’m joined by Senator Malcolm Roberts, one of the few politicians in Australia standing up for Australians and puts Australians first and his country first.  Thank you again, Senator Roberts for joining me today.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome and thank you for doing what you do on TNT because we need an independent news media.  Part of the problem is that the governments are owned by major corporations who are in the media and that the messaging is false.

Melinda Richards: Yeah, it’s interesting.  I just spoke about that this week that the government has now invested nearly $33 million into Channel 10 and had a little bit of a rant about that.  And having government owned media is the worst idea that could possibly be put forward to a supposed free society.  Senator Roberts, I wanted to talk to you about also the Australia card.  You’re of the age, and I’m of the age, where we can remember the Australia card being proposed by Bob Hawke back in 1985 and he was intent on doing what the digital ID is going to do now.  Of course, the digital ID would be 1000 times worse because we have the technology now, but back in the 80s, Australians said a resounding no to the Australia card and then they talked about it again a couple more times and Australians said a resounding no each time it came up.  So of course, Australians probably would say a very loud, resounding no to the digital ID.  Should this have gone to a referendum to the people?  Because of course, this is going to be the biggest change that society’s going to have in the next coming decades.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, that’s one way certainly of doing it.  We’ve got a One Nation policy – Citizens Initiated Referendum, which means that the people – it operates in some countries, Switzerland for example, and it brings accountability to the federal parliament.  That’s where a citizen can say I don’t like a bill, he or she can make a petition, get sufficient signatures.  Then the bill is put to, even if it’s been passed by the parliament, is put to the people and the people can say go to hell, remove the bill. 
They can also hold politicians accountable and say we don’t like what you’re doing, Melinda, you’re out.  You know that’s what we need, accountability.  So yes, it should be put to the people.  But the Australia card is a really important lesson because I didn’t pay much attention to it at the time.  But as I understand it, Melinda, that was about making sure that people receiving welfare payments from the government, which is really from the taxpayer, were accountable and there’d be no cheating.  And we see a lot of cheating on welfare these days.  So that’s the intent.  But even with that intent, the taxpayers say no, I’d rather lose my money than have the government watching over us.

Melinda Richards: We’d rather have people cheat then have people track US, have people follow, follow the ID number, have our ID number continuing to go through different aspects and parts of our society.  The people of Australia at the time understood the implications.  Are we a little bit more apathetic now or is it just that we are not really understanding what is being passed through parliament because it’s not being talked about much in the mainstream media?

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve, you’ve nailed it.  The mouthpiece media, the legacy media, the Big Brother media, whatever you want to call it, do not talk about it because their masters are wanting this Digital ID to go through because they’ll be part of the corporations that it’ll be widened up to in the future.

Melinda Richards: I mean, we’re still looking at the money train then.  We’re still looking at the people that are going to profit from this by controlling us and then pushing through different things and different subsidies and different parts of bills and ideas and things that we won’t even have a say in either.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct.  Remember the three words, two points – control and wealth transfer.  This is what it’s about.  We’ve got the identity verification, which is a bill that went through earlier, a couple of months before, or a few months before the digital ID bill – that was about enabling biometric data to be used. Digital ID bill came up.  The Misinformation-Disinformation bill was introduced by the Morrison Government, and it has been retracted or withdrawn – paused in its process through this parliament.  So that’s coming up as well.  That’s where they will control what you say and what you then do.  So, this is all heading for control and enabling wealth transfer.  Because we also know, thanks to my questioning at Senate estimates, that the Reserve Bank of Australia has been working on a digital currency and has been tying that up to work overseas on a global digital currency.  I mean the Reserve Bank admitted it.  So, this is putting everything in place for social credit score.  And there were several amendments considered in the – it wasn’t a debate – in the passage of the bill through – the hijacking of the bill through the parliament.  And not one word of debate was allowed on any of those amendments.

Melinda Richards: That’s incredible.

Senator ROBERTS: Yeah.  And then the media doesn’t even report this going on.  But this is typical of what the UNI party is doing.  It’s not just the Labour Party.  All of these bills, including the Digital ID bill, were introduced by the LNP, the Liberal National Party government.

Melinda Richards: I mean, do you think this is a really big problem for the conservative movement in Australia?  I just had Andrew Cooper on earlier today talking about CPAC, talking about where the conservative movements going in Australia, particularly in light of what’s just happened in the UK election.  I mean, the digital ID has got to be something, hasn’t it, that that the politicians, the conservative politicians in Australia and the conservative citizens of Australia should now be rallying behind almost as strongly as they did with the Voice referendum.  I mean we know with the positive outcome that happened there that when we do rally, when we do understand things, when we look a little deeper into what’s going on, we can actually get a great result.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re absolutely correct.  And there are a few conservatives, true conservatives in the Liberal Party, but most of them are in One Nation and Libertarians these days.

Melinda Richards: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Alex Antic, for example, he drafted a bill that’s called, I think the Repeal Digital ID Bill.  He invited genuine conservatives to cosign it and co-sponsor it.  So, he invited me, Pauline Hanson, Ralph Babet, Gerard Rennick and Matt Canavan.  And so, the six of us are all co-sponsors of the bill.  And the bill’s very simple.  It just says repeal the Digital ID bill – that’s it.  And then there’s the consequential amendments, which is repealing any changes of the digital ID caused in other legislation.  So, it can be done.  You look at the Liberal National Party, Gerard Rennick is one of the best senators and he’s been put in an unwinnable position pre-selection.  You look at the true conservatives, Kevin Andrews from Victoria – gone, not pre-selected.  You look at the senators they’ve appointed recently, they’ve been from the left wing of the Liberal Party.  You see Connie Fierravanti-Wells, Eric Abetz – genuine conservatives sidelined and taken out of federal politics.  So, what we see now is a Liberal Party that is a clone of the worst parts of the Labor Party.  You’ve got factions now within the Liberal Party, you’ve got very, very few Conservatives and so what we’ve got now is a Uni-Party and we know that every major energy bill, for example, climate and energy policy was introduced by the Liberal National Party, not the Labor Party.  The Labor Party came in and ramped it up and that’s what they’ve done across the board.

Melinda Richards: Yeah, that’s right.  And it’s been a shocking revelation for a lot of conservatives over the last probably 15 years or so that the conservative movement is not being represented by the Liberal Party, the Liberal National Party and this has been a bit of a wake up call for the conservative movement in Australia and certainly in the UK – they’ve woken up. It took them 3 elections.  I think we need a strong conservative leader in this country to bring us back to some of our core values.  And there are things that the conservative movement is going to have to, as I said earlier, grab a hold of and fight back pretty strongly.  And the group of politicians you mentioned, Senator Roberts, you are the true heroes of our political movement at the moment in Australia because you are putting Australians first.

Thank you so much for joining me today, Senator Roberts.  I certainly hope we can talk again very soon.  You’re listening to Melinda Richards on TNT.

/by

Radio Interview: Defence Honours and Awards System Senate Inquiry

,

Thank you to Ben Fordham of 2GB for inviting me to discuss this inquiry. The inquiry aims to look at potentially illegal medals being awarded to senior defence officers, hear from ADF personnel and explore possible improvements to the Defence Awards and Honours system.

If we want people to serve this country, we have to back them and hold their leadership accountable. 

Transcript

Ben Fordham: Well, Australia has a new chief of defence, Admiral David Johnston is in and General Angus Campbell is out. He’s officially stepped down from the role after a rocky six year term. And during that time, General Angus Campbell quickly became one of the most divisive figures in the military. He didn’t do himself any favors when he tried to strip war medals from all troops who served in Afghanistan because a handful were accused of war crimes.

The then defense minister, Peter Dutton, was forced to intervene and he reversed that controversial decision. But now a medal on General Campbell’s chest is being put under the microscope at a new Senate inquiry. He was recommended for the Distinguished Service Cross back in 2011. That’s Australia’s third highest military decoration. The DSC is awarded for distinguished command and leadership in action as commander of forces in Afghanistan.

At the time, the criteria for someone to receive the award required them to be in action, meaning to be under direct fire of an adversary. But out of nowhere, three months after General Campbell was recommended to receive the award, the rules were changed. The criteria of being in action was changed to in warlike operations. Senator Malcolm Roberts, who will lead the inquiry, says senior officers have abused the defence honours and awards system. Meanwhile, enlisted personnel have to fight for recognition and higher ups downgrade their medals. Malcolm Roberts The senator from Queensland, with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is on the line right now. Senator, good morning to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Good morning, Ben. What a fabulous summary spot on mate, accurate.

Ben Fordham: So what are you suggesting is going on here?

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m suggesting is that these senior officers -the top brass of our Australian Defence Force are looking at medals as a way of rewarding each other, they just seem to think it’s an entitlement that comes with their salary package. But what we’re really looking for is some integrity with regard to the way that the rank and file the serving enlisted soldiers are treated because they’re not getting their medals. And by the way, Ben, I want to thank all ADF people for their service. And I also want to appreciate especially the serving members and veterans who have been working with us to restore accountability over many months in this Australian Defence Force. The pride and respect …

Ben Fordham: I’ll just jump in for a moment and ask you just about General Angus Campbell, because that’s going to be the key thing that people will focus on in this inquiry. As I said, when he was recommended, it was for, well, at the time they said the person who was receiving the award was required to be in action.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, “two way rifle range”. thinking.

Ben Fordham: Well, hang on a moment. Was he in action? Well, yes, he was over there. He was obviously playing a critical role. But the criteria also said you had to be “under direct fire of an adversary”. And that raised a few flags, didn’t it, that people in the military thinking, well, does General Campbell fall into that category?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, no, he doesn’t. He was away from the action. He was in an air conditioned office several hundred kilometers away and quite safe. What’s really galling people is that the same man refuses to remove his own medal after he tried to strip 3000 people who served in Special operations task force of their Meritorious Unit citation because of the Brereton inquiry. So if he was in action and he was commanding them, then he should have stripped his own medal. But he kept his medal and tried to strip it from the from the soldiers who are actually in direct action.

Ben Fordham: Okay. I just want to stick with this criteria for a moment and can you just confirm this? So originally it said that you had to be under direct fire.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct

Ben Fordham: And that’s when red flags were raised and people were thinking, does he really fall into that category? You say he does not. Then three months after he was recommended to receive the award, the rules were changed and the criteria changed from inaction to in warlike operations. Is that right?

Senator ROBERTS: That is correct Ben. You’ve said it so well, as I said before, you’ve said it so well today. It’s perfect.

Ben Fordham: Okay. So was he in warlike operations?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, he was in the Middle East. He was in near Afghanistan, near the theater of war. But he wasn’t actually actively involved in the war.

Ben Fordham: Why did they change the criteria?

Senator ROBERTS: Probably to justify his medal because he was awarded the medal incorrectly, is my belief.

Ben Fordham: Okay. I want you to elaborate on that. You believe that the criteria changed to suit General Angus Campbell?

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what it looks like Ben. And that’s what a lot of troops are saying. And they’re saying that the top brass are getting medals, not justified, and they’re missing out themselves down the lower ranks.

Ben Fordham: And there had been requests, people had asked questions when the criteria was in action, people actually requested some details to say, okay, can General Angus Campbell give us some answers on when he was in action and there were no answers forthcoming, right?

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. He was mute. There was nothing coming.

Ben Fordham: All right. So will he appear before this inquiry?

Senator ROBERTS: That’s up to the Senate inquiry to justify. I won’t be leading the inquiry. I will be a participating member on it. But it’s a standing inquiry. Standing committee that’s already got six members appointed, but I’ll be participating in it as an additional participatory member. But that’s up to the inquiry and the Senate inquiry if they want to call General Campbell, they can force him to come. They can subpoena him if necessary. So the powers are there.

Ben Fordham: So how do you sum up his time leading the defence force?

Senator ROBERTS: A shambles, mess. The rank and file – the morale in the Australian Defence Forces is atrocious. Where we’ve seen some pride and respect for the Australian Defence Force. We need that to be restored and the troops who are talking to us and there are many saying we’re absolutely correct and that the morale is low, the turnover is high, the recruitment is falling. We have more people leaving than coming to the Australian Defence Force at the moment. We’re going backwards in numbers and so this is a security matter. It’s an essential security matter, a national security matter, Ben.

Ben Fordham: He really lost the dressing room, didn’t he, Malcolm Roberts, when he decided to strip war medals from everyone who served in Afghanistan because a handful were accused of war crimes.

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly. And the Yamamoto principle from second World War says that if a crime is committed in the theater of war by a soldier, then everyone up the line is accountable and responsible. What he did was he stripped medals from – he tried to strip medals from the 3000 and yet hung onto his own. Yet he was commanding the troops he was stripping medals from.

Ben Fordham: And if it wasn’t for Peter Dutton, who was the minister at the time, they would have lost those medals. Thankfully, he stepped in and I’m going to be really keen to see what comes out of this inquiry. So thank you so much for joining us.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome. Ben. Thank you.

Ben Fordham: Malcolm Roberts, the Senator for Queensland with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

/by

Angry Veterans Demand Revocation of Angus Campbell’s Medal

,

There is no specific evidence that Angus Campbell was “in action” which is the criteria required for his medal at the time of his nomination.

The honours and awards system has been abused, with senior officers and generals giving medals to each other, while frontline soldiers who faced direct enemy fire must fight yet again, this time for the recognition they rightfully deserve.

This issue goes far deeper than General Campbell. It’s time to clean out all the rot at the highest levels of the Defence Force.

Read article here: Angry vets plea for Labor to revoke Angus Campbell’s Afghanistan medal, saying he did not see enough action | The Nightly

/by

Australians Deserve Their Own Home

,

Australians are sleeping on the street and the Government doesn’t care.

Hundreds of thousands of arrivals are flowing into the country while we don’t have houses for the Australians that are here. 

Rent prices are up 40% and house prices are 10x the average income, completely out of reach for most of Australians. We need to cut immigration, ban foreign ownership, give Australians more savings, introduce some competition to the banking cartel and open up construction as well. 

Australians deserve their own home, One Nation will make sure they get one.

Transcript

The housing and rent crisis is a national tragedy. In Australia, one of the richest countries in the world for resources, we have working families homeless, sleeping in their cars or under bridges. In August 2020, the national average rent was $437 a week. It’s now $627, an increase of 40 per cent in just a few years. The national rental vacancy rate is just one per cent—actually slightly under that—far below the three per cent rate that’s considered a healthy market. House prices are out of control. In 1987, the average house cost 2.8 times the average income.

Today, a house costs 9.7 times the average income. This is why there are hardworking Australians sleeping on the street—families on the street. People under 30 have given up hope of ever owning a home, yet we oldies are meant to hand our young people a better life than we had. 

One Nation promises to fix this housing crisis for all Australians. We will make the tough decisions that the Liberal and Labor uniparty won’t. Two point eight million temporary visa holders are in the country today, up from 2.3 million pre COVID. That’s an additional 200,000 homes needed for these new arrivals. While Australians can’t afford roofs over their heads, we need some of these people on visas to leave. An Australian can’t buy a house in China, yet foreign investors can buy both new and existing houses here.

One Nation would ban all foreign ownership of residential housing. Australians must come first. We would allow people to use some superannuation to invest in their homes. After all, it’s your money. We will ditch Labor’s facade, its pathetic, bureaucratic Housing Australia programs. Instead, we’ll use the same funds to create cheap 30-year mortgages fixed at five per cent interest to get Australians into homes. 

/by

Coal Still the Cheapest Reliable Power Source

,

The argument about nuclear is overshadowing an inconvenient truth.

Coal remains the cheapest form of baseload reliable power and nuclear is a better alternative compared to wind and solar.

I support nuclear power and believe it should be part of our energy mix, but there’s no need to eliminate coal to make it happen.

Transcript

Labor, the Greens, the paid-off media and climate activists are all fighting tooth and nail against nuclear. You can hear them screaming so loudly because reliable baseload power is a massive threat to the billionaire solar and wind cartel. Both sides of politics have, for more than two decades, mismanaged energy so grossly that we’ve caused an energy crisis that Australia is now facing down. One Nation congratulates the coalition on agreeing with One Nation’s longstanding policy to remove the ban on nuclear energy and have a debate about where it sits in our energy needs. We can only hope that One Nation’s full policy is adopted one day: remove all the subsidies and let the cheapest form of power win so we can put more money back in Australians’ pockets. 

There’s no reason that we need to forcibly shut down coal to put nuclear in the mix. The coalition plan is to forcibly acquire coal-fired power stations, shut them down and replace them with nuclear. Let’s do nuclear, and let’s do coal too. One of those coal-fired power stations the coalition wants to shut down is at Tarong. I visited there on Friday. It sits right on top of a coal mine. Coal is dug out of the ground and put on a conveyor belt straight into the power station with minimal transport costs. What more could you ask for? We’ve got 40 years of real-world costs on the Tarong stations, and it’s as cheap as chips. It uses high-energy-density fuel. Why tear down Tarong and replace it with nuclear based on projections—or worse, solar and wind based on unicorn farts? Instead, just build another coal-fired power station right there at Tarong beside it and use the same power. 

The coalition can’t do that, because it’s fully committed to the United Nations net zero madness, a catastrophic nightmare in the making, and we haven’t seen anything yet. We’ve got these people in the government putting on benefits to energy policy because of the rising cost due to their policy. Only One Nation will say, ‘up yours!’ to foreign unelected organisations telling us what to do and instead use Australia’s coal and uranium resources for the cheapest power possible. 

/by

Shut THIS down for Nuclear? It doesn’t make sense!

,

Converting Coal fired power to Nuclear is a United Nations Net-Zero scam.

I support Nuclear. It’s one step cheaper than the Bowen/Albanese wind and solar pipe dream, we should absolutely remove the ban. But Peter Dutton only wants nuclear because it complies with the United Nations Net-Zero targets, which his party is fully committed to. Now he’s saying he will forcibly acquire Coal Stations, shut them down, and convert it to Nuclear.

Tarong Power Station in South Queensland that I’m in front of here is one of those. It sits right on top of a coal mine and we have 40 years of figures proving exactly what it costs, and it’s cheap.

Let nuclear on our grid, but let the cheapest generators we have, coal, stay. That’s the only way anyone will get cheaper power.

/by

Ineffective Use of Funds and Procurement Practices by the NIAA

,

During this Senate Estimate session, I inquired about the amount the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) spent on the unsuccessful Voice Referendum.  The figure was not available. I questioned whether that expenditure might have been more effectively used if directed straight to the communities and expressed concern about the efficacy of the spending.

I highlighted the substantial amounts spent on procurement, noting that Barbara Constructions received $613 million over an eight-year period, while Evolve FM was allocated nearly $497 million. Additionally, Price Waterhouse Coopers, disgraced consultants, received around $50 million.I asked for the total amount spent by the NIAA during that period, which was, of course, taken on notice. I also questioned why, despite billions being spent on NIAA programs, the gap was not being closed. It was reported that $9.5 billion had been spent on procurement. 

I asked whether there was any consideration being given to providing funds directly to communities, bypassing agencies that are not delivering effective results, and offering communities greater autonomy. I did not receive a direct answer to this query.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. How much money did the NIAA spend on the doomed voice referendum?  

Dr Gordon: Good afternoon, Senator Roberts, I don’t have that exact figure with me, but we’ll be able to get that quickly this afternoon to you. 

Senator ROBERTS: If not, I’ll put it on notice. What difference would that money have made if provided directly to local Aboriginal communities to spend on their decisions and actually make a difference?  

Ms Guivarra:  Senator, although we don’t have the figures with us, you may be aware from previous testimony at other hearings that the majority of the expenditure on the referendum was actually with the Australian Electoral Commission. NIAA received a very small proportion of funding for issues associated with the referendum working group meetings and a civics and awareness campaign. Really, as I said, it was a very small proportion of the overall expenditure on the referendum.  

Senator ROBERTS: My concerns are not only with the amount of money spent but with the effectiveness of it. That’s why I asked the question about whether it would be better spent with the communities. Let’s continue. Looking at NIAA figures obtained through freedom of information—seeking moneys that NIAA spent—why are such large amounts provided to particular contractors? Barpa Construction Services has received almost $613 million.  

Ms Guivarra:  Senator, are you referring to overall expenditure under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, not related to the referendum?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, overall money that NIAA has spent. I think the previous man said something like 1,200 grants or 2,000 grants.  

Mr Dexter: Senator, I think you might be referring to some information that was released under FOI to do with the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the last several months. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a whole-of-Commonwealth policy that provides preferential procurement practices for registered Indigenous businesses. Barpa Construction did ring a bell with me as one of the businesses that were released as receiving a certain amount of money.  

Senator ROBERTS: $613 million, I’m told.  

Mr Dexter: I believe that was an amount that Barpa has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which is not necessarily—in fact it’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy money. It’s a collection. The Indigenous Procurement Policy and the reporting under it is a collection of all of the contracts that organisation has received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what they were paid for? If it’s outside your accountability, that’s fine.  

Mr Dexter: No, Senator, I wouldn’t know. That that would need to be directed to the agency that engaged them.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about Evolve FM Proprietary Limited, which received almost $497 million?  

Mr Dexter: That would be in the same category, Senator. There were a number of FOI requests that were made recently which were asking for the aggregate amounts that Indigenous businesses had received through the Indigenous Procurement Policy over the life of the policy. The Indigenous Procurement Policy is a policy that’s been in place since 2015. It’s resulted in about $9.5 billion going to Indigenous businesses over that period of time. I think one of the questions that we got under the FOI was: ‘What are the top 100 businesses that have received money through that policy?’ Evolve and Barpa were both on that list.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about PricewaterhouseCoopers, disgraced consultants, who’ve received almost $50 million?  

Mr Dexter: I’d need to check, Senator, but I would hazard a guess that it was not PricewaterhouseCoopers itself but rather PwC’s Indigenous Consulting, which is a separate entity.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you check on both those items, please.  

Mr Dexter: I’d be happy to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount of NIAA money spent over the eight-year period to companies providing contract services?  

Ms Guivarra:  We’ll have to get some other colleagues up for that, Senator.  

Ms Broun: Senator, could you repeat that question?  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total amount that NIAA spent over that eight-year period to companies providing contract services? That’s the eight years to January 2024. Ms Jackson: I don’t know if we’ve got the eight-year amounts with us. We’d have the last couple of years, which we can go into if you like, but otherwise we can take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Take it on notice, thank you. Presumably it’s several millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. With that kind of money and other moneys being injected into Aboriginal wellbeing, why is the gap not being closed?  

Ms Broun: Senator, clearly the evidence is that there are gaps in outcomes for First Nations people. Closing the Gap is designed and has been designed with our partners, particularly the Coalition of Peaks but all states and territories, to address those gaps. I’m a bit confused by your question in terms of ‘there’s some spending here, so that would have changed the outcomes over there’, because obviously there are different outcomes depending on different areas of government as well. I’d like to be a bit more specific about your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned that there’s a huge amount of money being spent, and it’s going through agencies, but it’s not closing the gap. Why isn’t it closing the gap?  

Ms Guivarra:  Senator, the majority of your questions are related to what we’ve done under the Indigenous Procurement Policy. The original intention of the Indigenous Procurement Policy obviously was to support Indigenous businesses, because we know that in fact Indigenous businesses also have a higher employment rate for Indigenous people as well, First Nations people. As Mr Dexter has said, we’ve had a lot of success with that— over 65,000 contracts with a total value of $9.5 billion worth of business going to First Nations businesses as a result of that Indigenous Procurement Policy.  

Ms Broun: You may be aware that in fact the assistant minister launched a review of the Indigenous Procurement Policy back in December. We opened up a consultation process for that review. It closed, I think, around March of this year. We’re going to take the learnings from all of that and see what further improvements we can make to continue what, I think, has been a success story just in relation to the generation of Indigenous business and creation of Indigenous employment.  

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re telling me there’s been a review of money given to Indigenous businesses. What I would like to know is: is there a review being conducted, or any idea of a review to be conducted, on spending of all kinds? Could that money instead be going directly to the communities to develop accountability and autonomy? Communities are screaming out for autonomy.  

Ms Guivarra:  Senator, as I indicated, in fact this review and consultation was really to see how we can further strengthen the Indigenous Procurement Policy because, as I mentioned, it has been very successful in awarding business to First Nations businesses and creating employment opportunities for First Nations people.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I acknowledged that and said: can you extend it to a review of all spending? And specifically can you send the money directly to the communities and bypass the agencies?  

Ms Guivarra:  The money associated with the Indigenous Procurement Policy is basically services contracted across all of government. Then it’s for each agency to decide whether they’re seeking to procure services from businesses, including First Nations businesses. The Indigenous Procurement Policy has a mandatory set-aside for First Nations businesses as part of that policy, which applies across government agencies. There has been interest in the community more broadly about what can be done to further to enhance that particular policy, and that’s the purpose of the review.  

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I acknowledged that twice. But what I’d like to know is: is there any consideration being given to reviewing expenditure across NIAA, not just on procurement?  

Ms Broun: Senator, obviously spending on Indigenous outcomes—and this is why we have cross-portfolio here—cuts across all of government to deliver outcomes in specific portfolio areas and specific policy areas. In NIAA we have the IAS, a large part of which has been employment services. Another part is ranger services. To your point, that goes particularly to communities on the ground, so it is focused on those sorts of things. Then there are a whole range of other programs that are supplementary to mainstream funding. But these are services that citizens are entitled to. It depends how you quantify the spending, but the different programs are there to deliver different outcomes for Indigenous people. We could go into the programs that are specifically designed with community and go directly to community, because there are a lot of those sorts of programs as well. They’re not all being delivered through departments, but on the ground as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’ll continue this in the future.  


/by