Assistant Trade Minister Tim Ayres has been caught in a heated stoush with Sky News host Laura Jayes over the ongoing national energy debate.
Despite having been in power for the past three years, the Albanese government refuses to discuss its renewable energy plans.
Instead the government is insistent on just tackling Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal, running a “scare campaign” against the proven clean source of power.
Minister Ayres repeatedly refused to discuss the cost of the Albanese government’s energy plans during an interview with Sky News on Monday. Asked by Laura Jayes if he could tell voters the total system costs of Labor’s energy plans, Minister Ayres did not give an answer. “I’m very glad you raised it. You don’t make electricity prices and energy prices lower for Australian industry and households by making them higher,” Minister Ayres said.
Laura pressed Minister Ayres on the fact his government had failed to bring down energy prices by $275 per year as promised at the last election – “Here we are three years later, and you still can’t have any upfront conversation with any minister in your government about why that has happened,” she said. Rather than respond to the criticism or discuss any of the government’s energy plans heading into the upcoming election, Minister Ayres changed the subject. “Peter Dutton’s nuclear reactor plan will make electricity $1,200 more expensive from day one,” he said.
The @SkyNewsAust host said it was “pretty telling” that when she attempted to discuss Labor’s energy plans, all Mr Ayres wanted to do was talk about the opposition. “This is what really annoys people though,” she said. “That (voters are) told that the other guys – who haven’t been in power for three years – it’s all their fault and you’re not willing to take any responsibility.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has still failed to address the fact his government failed to deliver on its promise to reduce power bills by $275.
While he has blamed international pressures, such as the Ukraine War, the election promise was repeated even after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
Mr Ayres told Laura Jayes to “focus on the facts” after she raised the $275 promise. “I am focussed on the facts. Where’s the $275?” she responded. But the Labor minister again pivoted back to the opposition. “Every day that we’re about to have a hot day. Peter Dutton and poor old Angus Taylor and Ted O’Brien … are out there predicting that the power is going to go off,” he said. “And it doesn’t go off.”
The NSW government was forced to ask residents to reduce their power usage during a mild heatwave in November 2024.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) struggled to avoid blackouts and requested factories shut down to reduce power demands.
AEMO was forced to issue a “lack of reserve” notice due to insufficient power supply, exacerbated by breakdowns in several coal-fired plants.
Minister Ayres claimed the blackouts were “inevitably” because of storm damage or coal plant failures but not because of renewables.
During the recent heatwave, renewables were unable to back up the coal-fired plant breakdowns because solar production came off at 3 pm when people return home to use energy at home.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/tKObksunXx4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-06 14:19:002025-02-06 15:43:50Labor Pressed on Cost of Renewables Plan
After five and a half years of holding government departments and agencies accountable, and doing our own research, we continue to pursue Australia’s largest case of wage theft. More than one BILLION dollars of underpayments involving as many as 5,000 workers. Our research has led to miners submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO). For example, a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.
In this session with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), I asked Mr Furlong, General Manager of FWC, how many applications for regulated Labour Hire Agreements were currently under the Commission’s consideration. He stated that 55 applications had been submitted, with 11 Orders made—9 in the mining industry and 2 in the meat processing industry.
I then asked a series of questions about the relationships between Awards, Regulated Labour Hire Agreements, and Enterprise Agreements. Mr Furlong confirmed that, under the Labor government’s recent legislation, it’s standard for casual workers performing the same job as full-time workers under a Regulated Labour Hire Agreement to receive an additional 25% in pay as compensation for entitlements they do not receive. Mr Furlong agreed to look into which Awards would have applied in the absence of Labour Hire Agreement Orders and provide that information on notice.
I’ve raised this issue at every senate estimates hearing since late 2019 and finally the Fair Work Commission and Minister seem to be taking this issue seriously. Until recently, bureaucrats and Ministers have been in denial of what has been happening right under their noses and that raises questions of integrity.
Australia’s largest wage theft case has been possible only with the participation of the relevant union bosses in the CFMEU/MEU, labour-hire firms, mine owners and the FWC’s approval.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’m interested in exploring the nature of labour hire arrangements and their relationship with associated awards, and also partly the CFMEU administrator. What’s the total number of labour hire arrangements currently before the commission to date?
Mr Furlong: I might start here and then ask Ms Scarlett to assist. My understanding is that to 30 September we’ve received 55 applications for regulated labour hire authorisation orders. And of that—
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘regulated’?
Mr Furlong: Of that number?
Senator ROBERTS: No, what does the term ‘regulated’ refer to?
Mr Furlong: That’s the term—
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Come before you guys’?
Mr Furlong: given under the loopholes mark 1 changes. In terms of the number of orders that have been made, there are 11. Nine of them, I understand, are in the mining industry and two are in the meat-processing industry. Ms Scarlett, is there anything you’d like to add?
Senator ROBERTS: That number was how many?
Ms Scarlett: It was 55. As Mr Furlong has said, 11 labour hire arrangement orders have been issued since the commencement of the provisions.
Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of orders?
Ms Scarlett: Regulated labour hire arrangement orders. Of the 55 applications, 11 orders have been made, a number of applications have been withdrawn and the remaining matters remain before the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the breakdown of these labour hire arrangement orders for each award that would otherwise have covered the employees? You might have to take that on notice.
Ms Scarlett: Yes. I’m not sure that we can go to the award. The regulated labour hire arrangement orders apply where there is a covered employment instrument such as an enterprise agreement in place. So it’s not necessarily an assessment of the award which applies, rather whether an enterprise agreement is in place that would cover the work of the labour hire employees if they were working in the business.
Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise agreement would be in an industry or work site that is covered by an award, but the enterprise agreement supersedes the award; is that right?
Ms Scarlett: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So would there be any such sites that only have an enterprise agreement and no back-up award?
Ms Scarlett: I don’t believe there would be, but I’d need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please do. I’d like to know the connection to the award, or to the award that would be in place if the enterprise agreement wasn’t there?
Ms Scarlett: I understand.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice whether there would be a general expectation that anyone working as a casual should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Ms Scarlett: The regulated labour hire arrangement order provisions provide for a 25 per cent casual loading for regulated labour hire employees.
Senator ROBERTS: Casuals.
Ms Scarlett: Casuals.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice if there is specific legislation, regulation or policy that requires that a casual employee should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? I know that it’s a community expectation and it’s a right almost, but is it enshrined in law, statute or policy?
Ms Scarlett: I’m not aware of a specific provision in legislation that requires a 25 per cent loading.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to check that?
Ms Scarlett: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ll take on notice to check it? It is fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? Can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: I can’t point to an award, but I’ll happily take it on notice. There are 155 modern awards, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, so I’d like to know if that’s normal.
Mr Furlong: Can I clarify the question so we make sure that we provide you with the information that you require?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. Is it fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? That’s the first part.
Mr Furlong: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The second part is: can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: We’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong. In applying the better off overall test, the BOOT, to enterprise agreement applications, would it be the normal expectation of the Fair Work Commission, having regard to pay rates of casual workers, that casual employees should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: I will ask Mr Corcoran to assist you, Senator.
Mr Corcoran: Each application is considered on its own merits by the member. They take into account the circumstances in their entirety. It’s not a line-by-line assessment that the member will make; the better off overall test is a global assessment.
Senator ROBERTS: A global assessment. If an award did not allow for casual employment, would this create the circumstance in which casual employees working under enterprise agreements subject to the set award would be paid less than full-time employees and/or be paid a rate that would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent?
Mr Corcoran: A casual employee wouldn’t be paid less than a full-time employee, I wouldn’t have thought, in normal circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: A casual employee would be paid less than a full-time—
Mr Corcoran: I thought they would not have been paid less.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry. And they’d be paid full time plus 25 per cent?
Mr Furlong: With some of these questions, I return to the correspondence I provided you on 11 January this year regarding information published on your website but also relating to the better off overall test and the Chandler Macleod Northern District of NSW Black Coal Mining Agreement 2015. I’m not too sure if you still have access to that correspondence.
Senator ROBERTS: I do. It’s sitting on my desk—with an intent to reply.
Mr Furlong: This series of questions has been covered in that correspondence. I’m happy to table it, if that would assist.
Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s fine; I know exactly where it is on my desk. Can you envisage a circumstance in which, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections?
Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed several times, the better off overall test, as Mr Corcoran said, is a global assessment to ensure the employees are better off overall. It is always determined by a member of the commission. Members, as you’re aware, are independent statutory office holders who are required to ensure that, in their decisions, they are satisfying the obligation, functions and prescribed content of the enterprise agreements before they can be satisfied and then ultimately approve the decision to make the agreement operational. If a party to that agreement or someone who has a valid interest in that agreement is unsatisfied, is concerned with that agreement application, they can seek to have the agreement overturned through the mechanism of an appeal; that is their right. The other thing I’d like to add here—
Senator ROBERTS: Just on the answer to that question: would the commission ignore the objections in assessing the enterprise agreement? Would the commission ignore the objections of the union as part of that? I’m not talking about passing it and then objecting to it; I’m talking about objecting as they’re processing it.
Mr Furlong: Prior to the application being made?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Furlong: It would be the subject of deliberation of a member before the tribunal.
Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, though, wouldn’t it?
Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of our members and their independent decision-making.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever seen a member overturn a union objection?
Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed, my role is to provide administrative support to the president of the commission to ensure—
Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, wouldn’t it?
Mr Furlong: I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Alright. I cut you off there.
Mr Furlong: I was just going to say that if an agreement has reached or passed its normal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can seek to have the agreement unilaterally terminated. They will then fall back to the underpinning award—or they can have the right to negotiate a new enterprise agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the extra detail; it goes outside what I’m looking for. In the process of getting approval for an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would hardly ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections.
Mr Furlong: It’s a case-by-case basis, on the information provided to the members in the consideration of whether or not—
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the likelihood? Have you heard of any?
Mr Furlong: As I said, it’s not my role to comment on cases determined by members of the commission. It’s my responsibility to provide the president with administrative support, as the general manager, to ensure the commission can operate effectively.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you for your opinion.
Mr Furlong: I can’t comment on cases that come before the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to. I’m not asking for your opinion on the member making the decision. I’m asking: would it happen, and has it happened?
Mr Furlong: I don’t have any oversight of particular cases that move through the tribunal side of the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: Would anyone else care to comment? It seems to me to be almost impossible; I won’t say it is impossible!
Mr Corcoran: I would say a member would always consider the views of the parties, but ultimately the member must be satisfied that the requirements of the act have been met.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have some questions for the minister; I think most of them will be pretty simple, Minister. I table this letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia; it’s the letter that was sent to the CFMEU administrator, copied to you, me and Senator Cash. I think these questions will be fairly simple, given your background, Minister. Why is the CFMEU administrator not here at Senate estimates?
Senator Watt: They’re not a public official. I think pretty much every person who attends estimates is either a minister or a public servant. The administrator is not a public servant. There are probably other reasons but that would be one of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Who pays his salary?
Senator Watt: He’s being paid by the CFMEU in the same way that officials of the union have traditionally been paid.
Senator ROBERTS: That explains that. What responsibilities does the CFMEU administrator have with or to the Fair Work Commission? I imagine he’d have to deal with them a fair bit.
Senator Watt: Mr Furlong might be better placed.
Mr Furlong: Under the registered organisations act, I am the regulator of registered organisations.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re overseeing it?
Mr Furlong: I oversee all the registered organisations, employer and employee alike.
Senator ROBERTS: Could the CFMEU administrator authorise payment of the underpaid miners from the CFMEU mining division using CFMEU funds?
Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of the administrator. I don’t think you were here for this section of my evidence: the administrator operates independent of government. He will make decisions on behalf of the union as he sees fit.
Senator ROBERTS: Can he investigate wage theft from casual miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley?
Mr Furlong: In representing the interests of his members, he can look into the underpayments. It’s a core function of trade unions to do that.
Senator Watt: Noting that the administrator is the administrator of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. To use the colloquial, his members are members of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, not, for example, members of the maritime division and certainly not people who are now members of the Mining and Energy Union. His only responsibility is for the Construction and General Division, and its members.
Senator ROBERTS: The government said it needed the parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality, didn’t it—amongst other things?
Senator Watt: I might look back at what we said. We had a debate this morning about it. It’s not possible for me to go into the intention of the administration because of the High Court litigation. I’m sure you can look back at what was said in the second reading speech.
Senator ROBERTS: That was my impression, so correct me if I’m wrong. Now, management of this is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. You said it would be a matter of immense public importance.
Senator Watt: I think there has been a lot of public interest in this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes—so wouldn’t it be better to have him subject to parliamentary scrutiny and Senate estimates?
Senator Watt: I’m looking around at our lawyers. I might get Ms Godden, the departmental chief counsel, back up, if that’s okay. I know departmental people don’t normally appear at the table for this. Senator Roberts, I don’t know if you were here this morning but we had a discussion about issues that we could answer questions on and issues that we couldn’t because they might involve the High Court case. I don’t want to say anything which will interfere with that, and I know you don’t want me to either. Could you ask the question again, so I can get some advice on whether I can answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is the government said it needed parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with the alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality. Now the oversight of the CFMEU administrator is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and yet it was said to be a matter of immense public importance.
Senator Watt: I have no doubt it’s a matter of great public interest. I was saying before to Senator Payman that either the legislation or the scheme of administration requires the administrator to provide a report to me every six months, which I’m required to table in the parliament, so there is a form of parliamentary accountability through that. That was considered to be the appropriate amount of reporting for a role that is completely independent of government.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I know you’ve been very patient during the day, but this is—
Senator ROBERTS: Given a report in the media on 12 April this year—I mentioned this in a speech in the Senate, but there was no answer to it—is the real reason for the CFMEU being placed in administration to stop John Setka taking over Labor in Victoria, as he reported? And why wouldn’t constituents be suspicious of the arrangement?
Senator Watt: As I said in response to an earlier question, I’d really like to be able to answer that question but it’s probably not wise that I do given the High Court litigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
Senator Watt: But I’m told you might want to have a look at paragraph 11 of the revised explanatory memorandum, which provides some reasoning for the legislation.
Renewables are incredibly destructive to our environment and good, productive farmland.
This is a great documentary from Advance Australia covering how people pushing net-zero like the Greens party are doing huge harm to our environment and ability to feed ourselves.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/KmxOWqMsDxM/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-05 17:50:552025-02-05 17:50:58The Impact of Net-Zero on the Environment and Farmland
I’ve got a very simple goal – make it as cheap as possible to turn the lights on. Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese say we should comply with the Paris Agreement instead.
You can only trust One Nation to put Australia and your power bills first.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZBGk1hCRIxI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-03 17:56:172025-02-13 14:49:022SM Radio with Chris Smith
The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of legislation that One Nation would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam. This Bill continues wasteful spending, now with a hint of desperation.
The Bill introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 per kilogram, aiming to meet net zero targets. However, if hydrogen were commercially viable, companies and banks would be investing, but they aren’t. One Nation believes in the profit motive, not subsidies.
Recent withdrawals from hydrogen projects by companies like ATCO and Shell highlight the unviability of green hydrogen. In contrast, One Nation supports practical projects like the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, which will bring thousands of jobs and $8 billion in private investment.
The Bill also offers tax incentives for refining critical materials used in renewable energy, costing $7 billion over 11 years. This benefits processors, not taxpayers. One Nation proposes infrastructure projects to support critical minerals development instead.
Lastly, the Bill changes borrowing rules for Aboriginal communities without actually specifying the new rules, creating uncertainty and potential debt for unviable projects. One Nation cannot support this lack of transparency.
The net zero transition is destroying Australia with absolutely no benefit to the natural environment.
It’s time we returned to reliable coal and gas fired power stations. This measure will put more money back in Australians pockets and end further suffering.
Transcript
The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation.
The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen was commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren’t. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn’t happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It’s called the profit motive.
Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years, using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity.
Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It’s marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it’s using it’s shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they’re legislated.
There’s nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it’s a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation.
Let’s move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries, used to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it, but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We’re tossing money at these people, and it’s wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. ‘What’s a billion here or there?’ says the government.
The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there’s no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people’s money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation’s proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs.
Let’s move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It’s even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don’t, and yet you’re going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either.
In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won’t touch.
Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as ‘Minister for Blackouts’, Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let’s see what the government does intend.
The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It’s costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It’s now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering.
I’m now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living.
Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you’re going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people’s pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order:
The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution …
That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero.
I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It’s almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn’t tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia.
Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians’ pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/8tb1aDXiOLk/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-03 17:49:172025-02-13 14:50:10One Nation’s View of “The Future Made in Australia” Bill 2024
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is currently struggling to attract young recruits. This issue has multiple facets. In this discussion, we discuss these challenges, along with topics like immigration and more.
Transcript
Mike McLaren: The ADF have problems, it seems, getting young people who want to join up the forces, whatever they are. Now, there’s various aspects to that, but I want to discuss it now with One Nation Centre for Queensland, Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, good morning. Thank you for doing this.
Malcolm Roberts: Good morning Mike. Thank you for having me.
Mike McLaren: Now, one of the issues, it would seem, is that the idea of joining up the forces has been lumped into one, whereas experience shows with other countries, including our own, that it would be better to build on the traditions that the Navy has, the Air Force has, the military have. What do you think?
Malcolm Roberts: I agree with you. The Australian military, all the forces, the Navy, Air Force and Army have a fantastic record, each of them. And I learned from a couple of, very well, senior officers some time ago, that the key to the Australian Armed forces, each of the three departments separately, the key to each one of them is mateship and Australian values and that’s really important that the sense of tradition that comes with that. When you have that sense of tradition and the culture being reinforced, especially by leadership at the top, then you have that culture propagating itself and people want to come in. Now Mike, there is another problem. In addition to not being able to attract younger people, they’re losing a lot of older people.
Mike McLaren: Oh, yeah.
Malcolm Roberts: And the key is morale and the morale is low and why is the morale low? Because we are focusing on too much of this diversity, equity, inclusivity, nonsense and people can see that not everyone’s equal, but you’ve got to have some basic skills before you can get onto the front line. And the key to the Australian mateship is that everyone has a fine training standard and when they’re past that, you know that if you are next to me in the trench, you can count on me and I can count on you, the skills and the mateship, and that’s vital. But when you’re concerned about some of the people around you not being up to scratch because they went through, based upon DEI, not on merit, then that’s going to destroy that mateship. It’s going to destroy the reliability and that’s destroying the culture and it’s coming from the top of the armed forces. They’re eating away at the culture. They have no clue what they’re doing.
Mike McLaren: The whole concept of DEI does seem to be fading, particularly in the US. Whether it will fade as sharply here, I don’t know. But are we going to change do you think? Is the realisation upon us that DEI sounds nice but doesn’t deliver the result really?
Malcolm Roberts: DEI in the case of companies like Boeing and Qantas spells D-I-E, die, and it’s death. So merit has to be restored. In the United States, they’ve had some incidents and they’re waking up to that. And of course along comes Trump and says, “That’s it. No more.” What we’ve been doing with some of that DEI in the Senate is just ridiculing it and smashing it and people are starting to wake up. The Greens who are the foot soldiers for that international concept from the UN and the World United Forum, they’re now getting embarrassed when they push that DEI. So the tide is changing. Trump is going to be one foot on the accelerator and I think it’ll come the same with so many other things in society. Trump has said it’s okay to say that wind turbines are terrible. It’s okay to say that climate change is rubbish. It’s okay to say so many things now that only a few of us have spoken up about.
Mike McLaren: Yes, indeed. We were discussing the other day why it is that the ADF is having trouble recruiting and one of the elements that came into that discussion were patriotism, is it lacking? Somebody told me yesterday that the Gen Z’s don’t support the indicators of patriotism, for example, Australia Day, ANZAC Day. But I had a good look around and it seems to me that might’ve been the case a year or two ago, but that has turned and young people now really are supportive of, well, I guess, indicators of patriotism is the way I see it.
Malcolm Roberts: I think you’re spot on, Mike. There are two things that are fundamentally the foundations for organisation of human societies, human civilizations, and that’s the nation state and the family. The United Nations, as some of the senior people, admitted that they’re on a move to a long, decades-long move to put in place of one unelected socialist global governance. They want to destroy nation states. You can see it in immigration policies they’re pushing. You can see it in some of the other policies they’re pushing, their economic policies. And we don’t have any need, any responsibility to comply with the UN. We should be sticking with standing up for Australia and sticking up with standing for families. We talked to men ago about the DEI. That is about breaking up families. The UN has admitted that. Now coming back to that, what we’ve seen is the people that are waking up to the fashion and the nonsense and truth is starting to come back to Australia in so many ways. People are realising it’s all crap.
Mike McLaren: Just on the business of how young people feel about the country, I think you make a good point when you say one of the reasons why young people might want to join one of the forces is because they want purpose in their life. And you can see that even with a lot of people that I think are misguided with the causes they pursue, they do that because they want some purpose in their life, don’t they?
Malcolm Roberts: Yes. Everyone wants purpose in our lives. The most switched on age and group in my opinion, from my experience, is the adolescent male. They are really switched on. The delinquents we see in most of our cities, and I mean all of our cities, in Queensland, provincial cities including Brisbane, the crime that we see being committed by young people and across the races and across the demographics, it’s not a racial thing, it’s not an income thing, it’s not whether you come from a rich family or a poor family, it’s a lack of meaning, lack of purpose. I mean, young children, they really are children. Young men, when they’re told that the world is going to end in five years because of global boiling and so many other things, and Covid is going to destroy you, all of this nonsense that, what’s to live for? What’s the purpose? So they go and have a bit of what they call fun. But what we’ve seen time and time again, the success rate of helping these people to find some meaning, find some purpose in life, is phenomenal. And once they find that meaning, find that purpose, then it really changes their lives and brings them back into society as contributors and caring. And that’s really far more powerful. A person who cares and considers other people is far more powerful and contributes to society is far more powerful than a delinquent smashing a car.
Mike McLaren: Oh indeed. And it’s much more satisfying for the individual.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, much more. And one of the other things is that we’re bringing people in record numbers. At the moment when I say we, the Albanese government, and it’s something that the liberal party has done too. Liberal and Labour both pushed hard, heavy, massive immigration since John Howard doubled immigration during his term and he puts this on the big immigration agenda. The Labour Party has brought in close to one and a half million people in the last two years and kept about 1 million people, after you take away the people who’ve left. Now, we had 1.9 million people on temporary visas before Covid. We now have two and a half million people on temporary visas. And then Albanese said, you would only have high immigration. It’s actually catastrophic and massive migration. Young people, that migration has driven the demand for houses through the roof. Rents, people building new houses and people paying off an existing house, are becoming unaffordable, not becoming, they are unaffordable for young people and young people cannot see any possibility quite often of getting a house. How do you start a family when you haven’t got a house?
Mike McLaren: Indeed.
Malcolm Roberts: When you can’t even afford rent. It’s not just meaning and purpose, it’s also looking after family because the age to have a family is strong in most of us.
Mike McLaren: Indeed, yes, that’s a whole story in itself. In fact, if you want to come back on the programme, in the future, we might go into that a bit more because I’ve been looking at that myself, the replacement rate and what’s expected. And of course in the big cities, the story today is that everybody’s going to live in a shoebox. But I don’t know about you, I’m not Nostradamus, but I’ve seen that coming for quite a while now. Anyway, Malcolm, I do appreciate your comments and thank you for coming on the programme this morning.
Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome, Mike and that’s why we’re advocating a pause, a cut in immigration and actually deporting lawbreakers, sending them home and deporting those who break the law. So I’m happy to come in and talk about immigration anytime you want. It is one of the major serious problems that are affecting housing prices in this country.
Mike McLaren: Oh, absolutely it is. And it’s very clear that the people do not want what the government is doing, but they keep doing it. Anyway, Malcolm, appreciate your time today. Thank you very much for that.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2GB.jpg?fit=756%2C425&ssl=1425756Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-03 12:49:052025-02-13 14:48:212GB with Michael McLaren: Australian Defence Force
The evidence is in – protect our children from being given life-changing drugs and surgeries and make a ban on gender affirmation permanent and national, not just for a year.
BOVAER is a chemical additive that has been approved in Australia for feeding ruminants, including cows.
Bovaer is a trade name. The active substance is 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), which is diluted in propylene glycol and adsorbed on silicic acid. The chemical suppresses methane production by 99% in laboratory trials, but only 45% in field trials, and 28% when used for 12 months. This suggests that either the animals develop resistance to the chemical, or the chemical degrades in storage.
3-NOP is not approved for use in organic beef or milk in Australia, so those wishing to avoid the chemical can purchase organic products.
Bovaer itself is harmful if it comes into contact with human skin, and the Product Safety Sheet requires the use of personal protective equipment.
The amount of Bovaer used in cow feeding is very small. If used as directed, the product does not affect the animal and does not appear in meat or milk fat. Additionally, the animal consumes 5% less feed for the same output.
However, food.gov.uk conducted testing at levels above the recommended dose and found that at (double) the dose, effects identified included decreased ovary size. At five times the dose, the chemical WAS found in milk fat. Further research at higher levels was prevented by the premature slaughter of the animal, which is a red flag to One Nation.
Long-term genotoxicity testing concluded there was evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats. However, the makers hired “experts” to contest the result. There has been no attempt to determine the happiness of the animals, i.e. does consuming this chemical cause them any discomfort?
The primary purpose of the product is to reduce methane emissions. However, ruminants have been part of the ecosystem since time began and bovine methane actually helps the environment.
There is no reason to add this chemical to stockfeed, regardless of its safety. This product is nothing more than a fundraiser for climate carpetbaggers to create a billion-dollar industry for themselves where none existed and none is needed.
For these reasons, One Nation opposes the use of Bovaer.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Bovaer.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=16751200Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-30 12:42:052025-01-30 12:42:09One Nation Opposes the Use of Bovaer to Reduce Methane Emissions
