We don’t have four banks and two supermarkets in this country. We have one predatory group of foreign investors hiding behind different logos.
BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others own large portions of the banks and supermarkets that are ripping Australians off the most.
Transcript
So, why does that happen? Why are foreign companies getting let off the hook? I’ll tell you why. It’s because many of even our large Australian companies are part-owned and controlled by foreign corporations. The major predators are BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. They own the four banks, sorry they own 10 per cent of the four banks combined and they own the controlling interest. They tell the banks what to do—BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others in that little cohort of multinational predatory organisations. We don’t have four main banks. We have one main bank that is hiding behind four logos. That’s what we have. Same policies, same principles, same strategies, same products, same services.
Coles and Woolies, again, Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard. Go right through our corporations in this country. The corporations we thought were Australian owned, they’re foreign owned and controlled, and where does the money go? The profit goes overseas and what did the Morrison government do, along with the state premiers? Loaded it up so that foreign multinationals owning the large companies in this country made a killing out of COVID at the expense of small companies and small businesses.
News broke earlier this week of Universities being accused of handing out degrees to foreign students who can’t even pass basic English courses. Australian universities generate huge revenue from foreign students and are heavily dependent on this income. Meanwhile, Australian students are required to complete group assignments with these students who can’t even speak basic English.
I don’t want the education of Australian students sacrificed so that universities can make huge amounts of money from international students. It’s time to bring them into line and enforce basic English standards.
In a recent senate estimate session, I raised questions about the massive purchase of 267 million COVID-19 vaccine doses for Australia’s 27 million population. Despite only using a fraction of these doses, concerns remain about transparency and cost efficiency of that purchase.
Bureaucrats state that there was a need for a diverse vaccine portfolio and future supplies, yet exact delivery figures remain undisclosed due to commercial sensitivities. 👂 Listen as they sidestep the questions.
The question remains, was the expenditure justified and how much has actually been delivered.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?
Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money.
Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.
Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?
Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?
Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?
Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?
Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.
Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.
Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?
Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.
Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—
Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.
Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.
Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.
Real wages have gone backwards, erasing a decade of pay rises since this government took office. This data is up to March, so it doesn’t reflect the current inflation rise. So, if Australians feel they’re working harder and getting less, it’s because they are.
Net zero policies are driving up electricity prices, which in turn affect the entire economy. Every sector—whether farming, manufacturing, or retail—uses power, and rising energy costs inevitably get passed on. In the March quarter, business bankruptcies reached record levels, with the construction sector hit particularly hard. Housing construction is declining, yet the government continues to bring in more immigrants.
This government has clearly failed in its economic management—there is no trust left.
Transcript
The Reserve Bank has just announced the inflation rate for May as four per cent, which is above the expected rate of 3.8 per cent. What’s even worse is that the underlying inflation rate, which had been trending downward, has now increased to 4.4 per cent. Inflation is surging, and it’s entirely the fault of the Albanese Labor government. Today we heard Finance Minister Gallagher again bragging about this government’s track record on protecting wages. The data does not support that statement.
According to the Australia Institute, real wages of everyday Australians have fallen from $52,900 to $52,080 since this government came to power. That figure has been calculated to March this year, so it doesn’t take into account what is now rising inflation. If everyday Australians feel like they’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because you are. The inflation spike was entirely predictable. Net zero measures continue to force up electricity prices, which cascade throughout our entire economy. Every business, from farming to manufacturing to retailing, uses power. Any increase in power has to be passed on, and this is what we’re now seeing.
One Nation calls on the government to abandon the insane net zero transition before the economy falls apart entirely, catastrophically. In the March quarter, business bankruptcies were at record levels. Bankruptcies in the building sector were especially high. Housing construction is not rising; it’s falling. Yet this government continues to bring in more new-arrival immigrants, which is inherently inflationary. The economy as a whole is just barely staying out of recession, with GDP growth at 0.2 per cent, a figure that shows the destruction that net zero is causing to our entire economy. I hope the Reserve Bank holds its nerve and doesn’t raise interest rates. If it raises rates, everyday Australians will be doing it even tougher. What a mess. This government is not fit to govern—no trust.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/moNqzCzmUQ4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-12 09:39:322024-08-12 09:39:37Stagnant Wages, Skyrocketing Energy Costs and Record Business Failures
40 wind turbines every month. 22,000 solar panels every single day. 28,000 km of transmission lines and 48 gigawatt of batteries. That’s what the Net-Zero pipe dream requires.
These goals will never be achieved, yet the government persists in pursuing them, causing huge damage to our environment along the way. No one will take responsibility for cleaning up these environmental vandals, so Australia is on track for an environmental wasteland, more expensive electricity and blackouts.
Ditch Net-Zero – let’s bring down power bills AND protect the environment.
Transcript
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today relating to renewable energy.
In question time I asked the government how their insane net-zero wind and solar pipedreams were progressing. Here is what Labor’s energy minister Chris Bowen’s plan requires for the next eight years: 40 large wind turbines every single month, each with 100-metre concrete foundations, a massive turbine and huge blades atop a 300-metre tall steel tube; three days to erect the crane on each site; days to install each turbine; two days to dismantle the crane and move it to the next place; 22,000 solar panels every single day for eight years; 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines carving up national parks, prime farmland and the environment; plus 48 gigawatt hours of batteries. Predictably, the construction of wind and solar is nowhere near these targets. The government’s targets are physically and financially impossible.
While the targets will never be achieved, this government will do huge damage trying. Farmers and landholders are being conned into having these environment-killing wind-and-solar installations on their land. With the promise of some short-term money, farmers let these predators onto their land. Little do these landowners know, they are now responsible for disposing of the toxic wind turbines and solar panels at the end of their short life when the company that instals them inevitably goes broke or abandons them.
Every coalmine, however, is legislated to pay a rehabilitation bond for each hectare of land disturbed. The mining company pays upfront. The money is held until the mine ends and restores the environment to its original state. The bond is then returned. Wind and solar companies don’t pay any rehabilitation bond. Thousands of landholders will be stuck with useless wind turbines and solar panels on their property that they will have to pay to remove. Prevention is better than cure. Anyone can see this scandal coming, yet the government won’t take action to prevent it. It just sits there causing this catastrophe. The government protects its billionaire wind-and-solar mates living like parasites off subsidies Australian electricity users and taxpayers will continue to pay. Government screws it up; taxpayers pay.
The Strategic Shipping Fleet proposes tax incentives for selected shipping owners to flag vessels in Australia and employ Australian crews. The plan aims to ensure these ships remain near Australia for potential repurposing during supply crises to maintain essential goods supply.
One Nation supports this proposal, however the published plan lacks detail, particularly regarding the types of freight that would provide commercial viability while keeping these ships nearby. It appears that implementation of this idea is still far off.
The allocated budget only covers planning for another 5 years, yet the Department indicated that the budget did have an allocation for implementation, but that the details were not for disclosure. Publishing such budget information can help guide tendering companies on bid amounts, but it can also be misleading if funding isn’t actually available.
Despite the Minister’s assurance of implementation within 5 years, I remain unconvinced.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this evening. I’d like to ask some broad questions on the scoping of the strategic shipping fleet that Labor has announced and that we support. It’s been something we’ve been pushing for a while. Then I’d like to ask a few questions that build on what Senator O’Sullivan’s been talking about. Queensland should be a big winner out of the proposal for a strategic fleet, with a long coastline currently underserved by road and rail transport. A national rail circuit would help that too, and I’ll ask about that later. However, the idea is to encourage private ownership of ships to service the Australian coastline and the Pacific which could then be requisitioned in the event of an emergency, like the next virus or whatever. The report doesn’t go into detail about where the freight will come from, so we don’t know if it’s commercially viable— specifically which companies and how many containers. Do you have any information on where the containers are going to come from to keep container vessels commercially engaged in the scheme? What’s the volume of cargo? Or is it just very early days?
Mr Johnson: The planned approach in terms of selecting the vessels for the strategic fleet is to approach the market, and there are questions for that marketplace about both the capability of vessels they might put forward to join the strategic fleet and the commerciality of those vessels, which really goes to what freight they’re moving currently and how they propose their vessels will fit into the commercial marketplace. That’ll give us the information on the volumes of cargo and those sorts of things that would be moved on a normal day-to-day basis. But the vessel would be Australian flagged and crewed and therefore, as part of the arrangements to join the strategic fleet, would be available for that requisition.
Senator ROBERTS: Am I right in assessing then, Mr Johnson, that it’s very loose, maybe deliberately so— and maybe commendably so—and the arrangement at the moment hasn’t been fleshed out?
Mr Johnson: Part of what we’re looking at in terms of how the fleet’s established is to get the industry to come forward with those views on how that capability might be provided and what’s commercial in the marketplace, rather than us trying to identify what’s commercial. Then the industry would provide that in the proposals put forward to join the fleet, which we would then match up with the capabilities and capacities of the fleet that would suit the purposes for requisition later. So it’d be work with industry to join the two through theapproach to market process.
Senator ROBERTS: The funding in this budget is $21.7 million over five years, which seems enough to keep a small team of bureaucrats busy but little else. Does that not seem to include funding for the tax incentives and other costs in the scheme once operational? Can you confirm whether the funding is pre-operational only?
Mr Johnson: You’re correct; that is the funding to support the administration of the strategic fleet—
Senator ROBERTS: Ongoing.
Mr Johnson: and implementation of the other recommendations in the strategic fleet taskforce report. The amount of funding to actually support implementation of the fleet has been allocated but hasn’t been announced.
Senator ROBERTS: Has been allocated but not announced.
Mr Johnson: Yes.
Ms Purvis-Smith: It is not for publication, and that is so it doesn’t prejudice the government getting negotiations with market players so that we can get value for money.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I know that during COVID our fuel reserves got down to just two days, which is very poor governance in my opinion. This does illustrate why we need a strategic fleet, but the delay worries me. Can you confirm that, within the next five years, there will not be one extra ship with Australian crew operational in Australia as a result of the scheme?
Mr Johnson: The intention is to have the three vessels announced in the budget by the government operational within the next five years.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’ve had the maritime union and a shipping operator on the phone asking for more details—actually asking for a meeting with the department and the minister to see how they can respond to this development and swing freight over to the strategic fleet. Should I tell them to come back in five years or will you meet with them to get the ball rolling on planning new freight routes for container transport?
Senator Chisholm: I’m sure that people would be happy to take a request for a meeting. But, as you heard just then from Mr Johnson, we are keen to get this operating sooner than five years.
I joined Peter Fegan of 4BC Radio to discuss the inquiry into the defence honours and awards system due to my motion being passed in the Senate recently.
The morale within the ADF is alarmingly low, reaching a level that could severely impact our future security.
There is a prevailing sentiment among ADF personnel that the senior leaders are not accountable. The top brass are abandoning enlisted members and veterans, while taking credit for achievements that aren’t rightfully theirs.
Watch as these climate change bureaucrats deflect and squirm when trying to answer basic questions about what their department has been doing.
This session looked at why they sold millions of barrels of oil held in the United States and Labor’s new tax on petrol and diesel cars. Like always, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is completely out of touch with reality while trying to tell you what you can and can’t do.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Can we just continue with this strategic reserve? So Australia sold all of the oil reserves in the United States strategic reserve?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels, around June 2022?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the sale amount? $220 million?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to take that on notice. I don’t have that in my folder.
Senator ROBERTS: Who was the oil delivered to?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to also take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How much was paid in seller’s fees, commissions or whatever it is?
Mrs Svarcas: I’m happy to break that down for you on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: How much is the continuing empty lease in the US strategic reserve costing?
Mrs Svarcas: We do have an ongoing contract for that. I will, again, come back to you with the leasing costs on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all I had there. I’d like to move to the ute tax, please.
CHAIR: I think you’ll find it’s not called that, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?
CHAIR: We don’t have such a thing. Would you like to refer to the correct program?
Senator ROBERTS: Your new car tax.
Senator McAllister: We don’t have a new car tax, either.
CHAIR: No new car tax?
Senator ROBERTS: You know what I’m talking about.
CHAIR: How about you just say it, Senator Roberts, so we can get the right people to the table.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know the new fees for petrol and diesel vehicles.
Senator McAllister: It’s possible you’re referring to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
CHAIR: Yes, that sounds a bit more familiar.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s another way of saying it. Minister, why were you so secretive about it? You passed it under guillotine with no debate. Yet again, another bill with no debate.
Senator McAllister: The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard brings Australia into line with the very significant majority of the international vehicle market. It’s a policy—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Minister. The people of Australia elected your government to govern. They didn’t elect the United Nations World Economic Forum, the United States, Great Britain, or other global players. They wanted you to govern this country—not on behalf of others.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, could you allow the minister to finish answering the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Chair.
Senator McAllister: The government was very clear and we had extensive public discussion about the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. I believe there were Senate hearings, although I did not participate in them. We discussed it here in the estimates forum and also in the neighbouring committee at the last estimates hearings as well. Officials can talk to you about some of the public consultation that took place, including the position papers that were released. And senators had many opportunities to express their opinions about this particular policy initiative through the course of the Senate’s work.
Senator ROBERTS: So we don’t need to debate anymore in the Senate?
Senator McAllister: We do need debate in the Senate, Senator Roberts. These were important—
Senator ROBERTS: Second reading, third reading and committee stages?
Senator McAllister: I thought you had asked me a question.
Senator ROBERTS: I am! But I was continuing—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to ask you again to allow the minister to answer the question you have just posed and to not speak over her.
Senator McAllister: The government’s view was that this was an important reform, and that there was some urgency to this reform. It was a reform that had been proposed under a previous government, during a previous parliament, and not progressed. The consequences of that were that Australians continue to pay more than they need to at the bowser because the vehicle fleet in Australia is less efficient than it could be, because the range of vehicles available to Australians is considerably less than we expect it will be under the standard. We think it’s an important policy. We wanted to progress it, and we judged that there was a majority of support in the Senate for that, so we brought it on for consideration.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re afraid of letting the people participate through their views, expressed through senators in debates in second reading and third reading and committee stages, and assessing amendments?
Senator McAllister: I wouldn’t characterise it like that at all.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, are you aware, with an increasing amount of smart metres being installed—despite some people saying they don’t want it—and electric vehicle charging happening overnight offpeak, that’s when coal-fired power is supplying most of the electricity. So there’s potentially going to be an increased demand on coal-fired power stations as petrol and diesel vehicles are set aside in favour of electric vehicles. So you’re actually increasing the carbon dioxide intensity of energy.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I will ask some of the officials to talk you through the expectations that we have for demand on the grid. But the Integrated System Plan, which is produced by the AEMO, includes demand that is predicted to arise from the introduction of greater numbers of electric vehicles into the Australian fleet, along with a range of other changes. It also, as you know, shows a very significant shift to renewable energy, so the emissions intensity of the National Electricity Market is expected to decrease over time, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: So, are they like the projections where you told us we would be having lower power costs, and instead we’ve got far higher?
Senator McAllister: Do you want to talk about the issue that you originally asked me about, or do you wish to move on?
Senator ROBERTS: I just wanted to know what your projections were like and how accurate they are.
Senator McAllister: The Integrated System Plan is a long-established piece of analysis undertaken by the Australian Energy Market Operator. Officials at the table can talk to you about the expectations there and any other information we have of that expected demand on electricity.
Mr Ryan: To start with, I’ll talk about some of the different charging solutions we’re seeing and what impact that’s having. ARENA, who I know will be appearing, will certainly be able to tell you about some of the investment and some of the innovations they’re looking at in charging. You’re right, a lot of charging is done at home—80 per cent, we think—but that’s not just from the grid. A lot of those people—not all, but a lot of them— actually have batteries that charge and store solar energy from during the day. So when they’re charging overnight—it might be from a battery but it also might be from the grid—note that the grid is slowly decarbonising as well. So that’s increasing, day to day. There are other innovations where we’re seeing EV charging being provided at places people visit on a regular basis, whether that’s at carparks during the day or the workplace during the day, whether it’s at the kerbside, at the local gym, at the movies—places where there’s charging, more and more. Sometimes that’s in the evening, but a lot of the time that’s during the day. So we’re seeing some innovation, and there’s certainly been funding—not just from the Commonwealth but from the states and territories—to develop that innovation and look to maximise the solar in there. The last thing I’d say on the projections is that I do know that they take into account the grid and the impact on the grid for the uptake of EVs. So they are in the figures that are provided each year when they do the projections.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
Mr Fredericks: Senator, sorry; could Ms Rowley just give you 30 seconds on that, because it is quintessentially the answer to your question about how all of the emissions impacts are brought to bear.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Ms Rowley: In relation to the annual emissions projections, we look at the change in the vehicle fleet, including the uptake of electric vehicles, which is helping to reduce the direct emissions from transport. But we also take account of the electricity required to meet the growing share of electric vehicles. Just by way of example, for 2030, in last year’s emissions projections, we estimated that there was a seven-million-tonne reduction in transport emissions and a one-million-tonne increase in electricity emissions to meet that additional demand from electric vehicles, so the net effect in 2030 was an estimated six-million-tonne reduction in Australia’s emissions, taking into account both transport and electricity.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure, but I remind you you can’t tell me the impact on climate of that, so you’re basically going with a policy of spending money but not realising the benefit. Minister, do you still maintain—
Ms Rowley: I would note that the new vehicle efficiency standard is projected to save consumers money and reduce the impact of things like health costs on the Australian economy.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question?
CHAIR: Last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you still maintain, Minister, that punishing manufacturers of petrol and diesel vehicles won’t reduce the number of petrol or diesel cars available to Australians?
Senator McAllister: Senator, I don’t accept that characterisation of the policy setting.
The greatest lie told to Australians is that “wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy”.
Politicians and journalists, who should know better, are using a report of models from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (CSIRO) GenCost to try to justify this claim. In recent decades, CSIRO has completely destroyed its once stellar reputation for scientific research. It has now allowed its name to be used for political agendas rather than real science. The underlying assumptions and inputs used for the GenCost model must be subject to scrutiny.
I voiced these comments in support of a Senate Inquiry to do that, which Labor and the greens voted down. What are they trying to hide?
Transcript
Yesterday in question time I asked the minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Senator Wong a simple question: exactly how many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and kilometres of transmission lines were built last month? You’d think that, as the cornerstone of the Labor Party’s policy in government, the answer would be obvious and clear and given to me straightaway. To her credit—and I have a lot of regard for Senator Wong’s capability and think she’s one of the most capable senators in parliament—she said, ‘I don’t know.’ It’s the key policy for the Labor government, and they’re flying blind.
Here’s what I told her in the second question. ‘Minister, the government’s own figures to meet your net zero target show that over the next eight years you need to install and connect more than 40 wind turbines per month, 22,000 solar panels a day, 48 gigawatt hours of batteries and 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines. I pointed out to her that the government is building nothing like that.
The government’s wind and solar pipedream is going to be a nightmare. We are being driven off a cliff by the energy minister, Chris Bowen—
Senator Fawcett: Order, Senator Roberts. Remember to use the correct title.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister Bowen. This is a gargantuan task. This has been labelled by some people as the biggest transition since the start of the Industrial Revolution. It’s fundamental because energy has primacy in our society. Labor cannot tell us the cost of this transition of dumping affordable, lowest cost, reliable, stable and secure energy independent of nature’s vagaries and transitioning to an unreliable, high cost, unstable energy that is weather dependent and not secure. This is madness. But to do it without any costing is doubly mad.
Think about it. We are giving parasitic billionaires and major corporations from around the world—many of them from China—subsidies for installing solar and wind. Those subsidies drive up the cost of electricity, and then we ship our manufacturing to China. China wins in two ways. We have got a National Electricity Market forcing out coal with unfavourable regulations—just driving coal out by making it impossible to feed the market. But it’s not a market; it’s a so-called market that bureaucrats control. It’s a national electricity racket that was introduced by John Howard’s coalition government.
While they’re driving out coal and subsidising solar and wind, they now admit they need to keep Eraring Power Station open. They were going to shut it. They’re now offering subsidies to the owners and operators of Eraring to keep it open, so we’re subsidising them to shut it and we’re subsidising them to open it and then we’re giving $275 relief in power prices to consumers across Australia. Why? Because the energy policy has failed.
By the way, I need to mention that on the night of the incoming Minns government, the new energy minister said that they would have to look at the closure of Eraring. She was laying a signal there—a hint—that they’d keep it open. That’s exactly what they must do because they’re terrified. The Australian Energy Market Operator has identified severe blackouts around December this year. The No. 1 factor that has driven our standard of living for the last 170 years since the start of the industrial revolution has been relentless reduction in energy prices, the unit cost of energy. It’s been a relentless reduction in the real cost of energy. That was until John Howard’s government introduced the renewable energy target and other measures, and since then it has relentlessly increased. Australia has gone from having the cheapest coal and the cheapest electricity prices, thanks to our wonderful coal assets—high-quality, clean coal—to now having amongst the most expensive electricity.
So let’s have a look at the terms of reference for the inquiry that Senator Colbeck has proposed. I thank Senator Colbeck for his motion. It says:
That the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation GenCost 2023-24 report be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report … to explore assumptions and costings made in the report, including but not limited to—
the CSIRO has been criticised for every one of these things I’m about to read out—
a. asset lifecycles;
b. capacity factors;
c. energy type costings;
d. financing costs;
e. fuel costs;
f. augmentation requirements of transmission systems;
g. data standards techniques; and
h. other related matters.
CSIRO has been belted by experts on every one of these. We badly need this inquiry. These are the fundamentals of the biggest transition since the industrial revolution.
CSIRO used to be a highly respected organisation. It was internationally respected. It has now come to mean ‘corrupted science is really obvious’. It lost its way distorting and omitting science to fabricate support for the UN’s climate fraud. The CSIRO has never presented the basis of science which is empirical scientific data—measurements and observations—within logical scientific points that prove cause and effect. The CSIRO has been integral in working with the UN climate change body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in pushing distortions of science.
I have had three meetings with the CSIRO at 2½ hours each and, under cross-examination, it has admitted that it has never said that there has been any danger due to human carbon dioxide. It has admitted that, even though climate change was based initially on global warming claims, temperatures are not unprecedented. It has claimed the rate of temperature change is unprecedented, but the rate of temperature change is almost negligible since 1995. It’s almost flat. That’s according to NASA’s scientific satellite measuring temperatures. The CSIRO gave us not one solid paper to back up its claims. What it did give us was two papers we tore to shreds. Then they gave us another two, and we tore them to shreds. There are 24,000 datasets that I have access to that have been scraped from sites all over the world, including CSIRO’s and BOM’s case studies, and there is not one that shows any change in any climate factor—not one. It’s just inherent natural variation with cycles superimposed. Not only that but the CSIRO has never provided bases for policy and neither has any department or the alphabet soup of energy agencies. They have all failed to answer my question: what’s the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate, on any aspect of climate or on any factor of climate? What is the quantified specific effect per unit of carbon dioxide from human activity? Ocean heat content, air temperatures, ocean temperatures, storm frequency, severity and duration—not one of them can give me any answers on those at all. That is the basis for policy. Without that, you cannot understand or evaluate the options for reducing human carbon dioxide, you cannot track the progress of the measures and you cannot cost the alternatives. This is flying blind over a cliff. Electricity prices in every country with significant solar and wind have increased dramatically. Labor is simply continuing the policy that John Howard started, Tony Abbott continued, Malcolm Turnbull accelerated, Scott Morrison continued and Peter Dutton now propagates by confirming net zero.
Let’s turn specifically to the CSIRO report, GenCost. CSIRO used to be a respected scientific organisation, advancing our country’s technology. I refer to Senator Fawcett’s speech a minute ago. Now the CSIRO is a blatantly political organisation. It’s more interested in pushing the agenda of the government than in providing impartial, evidence-based research. Ideology is infecting most of CSIRO’s work like a virus. The GenCost report is shocking evidence of just how biased this once-respected institution has become. The methodology used in GenCost is so flawed that there are multiple hours of podcast series explaining all of its deficiencies, and I give a compliment Aidan Morrison for some of his work.
Let’s start with the cost of wind and solar. Many people, including some politicians, think GenCost says what it costs for wind and solar to deliver a kilowatt of power today. It doesn’t! It fundamentally doesn’t tell us the cost. GenCost imagines some fairytale dreamtime half-a-dozen years in the future and projects what they think wind and solar will cost, with no accurate, solid assumptions underpinning that. CSIRO even admits that this prediction they come up with is not the actual cost, but this is what policy relies on. CSIRO completely excludes the cost of every single power project up until 2030. They’re free! They’re free, according to this mob.
Just look at the tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission projects assumed to be free: EnergyConnect, $2.3 billion; Marinus Link, $3 billion. All are assumed to be free. Free, free, free! Santa Claus is giving them to us! There’s Central-West Orana, $3.2 billion, and HumeLink, $5 billion. It doesn’t sound like much when you rattle off a billion, does it! There are dozens more major projects.
Let’s look at the pumped hydro that’s assumed to be free. There’s Snowy 2.0, $12 billion plus and counting. That’s not included. There’s the Battery of the Nation in Tasmania, our biggest island. That’s $3 billion. It’s not included. There’s the Borumba pump hydro, $14 billion. It’s not included. There’s the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro, $12 billion. It’s not included. The list goes on and on and on. Tens of billions of dollars is excluded from the cost of wind and solar, but we’ll all pay for it—some people with their jobs when they’re shipped off overseas, some people for whom the cost of living will drive these out of reach.
Almost all of these projects, especially the pump hydro, are only being planned because of wind and solar, yet CSIRO excludes them from the cost of wind and solar completely. It’s like saying a Ferrari is the cheapest car you can buy, as long as you take out the cost of the sunroof, the air conditioning, the wheels, the gearbox and the engine.
Then there are their calculations on the cost of coal. They added an extra five per cent cost to the finance figures with no basis whatsoever. CSIRO just says, ‘Well, no-one likes coal anymore,’ and, whack, a completely unfounded hurdle is added on top. Then there’s the capacity factor. That’s the percentage of time the station is running. It has a huge impact on the calculated cost of power, if you assume a billion-dollar power station is running for only half the time it actually is on and can be on. They’re destroying the viability of coal with lies.
CSIRO also says:
In 2030, we project forward including all existing state renewable energy targets resulting in a 64% renewable share and 56% variable renewable share …
They just assume that we’re going to press ahead with variable renewable energy, regardless of what happens and without any costings. They just assume it’s going to go ahead. It doesn’t sound like impartial modelling to me, because it’s not impartial modelling.
But the people of Australia will pay for this. They will pay for it with their jobs. They will pay for it with their livelihoods. They will pay for it with their family budgets. What sensitivities have been applied for political risk? Policy will almost certainly change and you may have a government elected that ditches false targets. What percentage of chance do they give that? The United Kingdom is abandoning net zero. The Prime Minister has said so. Japan is switching back to coal. It is already using a lot of coal. Germany is scrapping wind turbines to extend coalmines. It is tearing down wind turbines that were installed so that they can mine the coal underneath them. China is producing 4½ billion tonnes of coal. We produce 560 tonnes, and we export most of that overseas, and China is buying coal from us. Indonesia is now the world’s largest exporter of coal. India has well over a billion tonnes of coal.
This report, the GenCost report from CSIRO, isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, yet it’s being used to justify one of the largest destructions of our economy in Australia’s history. Even if you naively believe we need to run the grid on solar and wind, this GenCost report deserves scrutiny and the Australian people deserve transparency. CSIRO has repeatedly shown it is dishonest on climate and energy. We need an inquiry. In refusing or opposing, the government shows it fears its assumptions will be shown to be flawed. If I’m wrong, CSIRO would be vindicated. So CSIRO, if it had any courage, would stand up and say, ‘Bring on the inquiry.’ Thank you, Senator Colbeck. We support this motion.
As the cost of living increases out of control, the number of businesses going broke (insolvency) is on the rise. Each of these insolvencies is a tragic story of people losing their jobs and facing uncertainty about whether they will have money to put food on the table.
Ditch the net-zero policies that are driving up energy costs, cut red tape and make it easier for family businesses to survive. That’s One Nation’s plan!
Transcript
I support Senator Hughes’s motion and agree that the Albanese Labor government has failed to grow the economy and, with that lack of growth, failed to restore Australia’s standard of living. A stable economic environment is necessary for a new business to open and to flourish and for existing businesses to weather the many storms this government has engineered. Labor’s interest rate rises are due directly to Labor’s wasteful spending and energy price inflation resulting from pointless net zero policies. The Prime Minister and Energy Minister Bowen have failed to provide electricity at prices people and businesses can afford, directly driving inflation. Every new piece of legislation in this place seems designed to strangle the last breath out of businesses. Live sheep exports are today’s casualty.
It should come as no surprise that data from ASIC shows there were 1,245 business insolvencies in May 2024. This is a 44 per cent increase on last year and a 122 per cent increase across the life of the Albanese Labor government. To put it simply this government is sending business broke. One thousand two hundred and forty-five insolvent businesses in just one month is not a statistic; it’s a human tragedy. These are everyday Australians who had a go at lifting themselves up, who were employing others in their community and who were paying tax to support the government agenda. Now their businesses are gone along with their ability to provide for their families, free from reliance on the government. Business confidence is down because this government has talked it down with an unending recipe of doom and gloom about global boiling and sustainability requiring reductions in living standards. There’s no hope in this message, just unending misery. It’s a lie. No wonder businesses give up.
One Nation believes abundance is not a dirty word. It’s natural for people to seek abundance and to share abundance. With One Nation, Australians can and will restore prosperity to this beautiful country of ours.
