Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact

,

The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.

I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?

Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?

Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?

Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.

Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?

Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?

Mr Binning: We have around 400.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?

CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.

Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.

Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?

Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.

Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?

Mr Binning: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.

Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.

Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?

Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—

Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.

Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.

Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.

Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?

Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?

Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.

CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.

Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.

Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s
generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—

Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?

Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.

Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.

Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Conservatives Must Unite: A Call for Integrity and Common Sense

,

In recent days, the call for conservative unity has been undermined by actions that contradict this goal. Social media, often used as a form of coercive control through lies, can instead be a platform for community and support for those feeling abandoned in a rapidly changing society. 

One Nation believes in stead-fast human rights tempered with common sense. Conservatism means treating others with honesty, respect, courtesy, and consideration, not because the government makes us but because it is the conservative way. As a conservative party, One Nation opposes any restriction on free speech, except where it incites violence. This has been my position since joining the Senate. Violence has no place in society or social media.  

Recent events have shown the need for integrity and leadership, qualities demonstrated by Senator Babet, John Ruddick, and Topher Field – and I thank them for that.  We have an obligation to inspire the best possible outcomes and I am committed to staying focused on exactly that. 

Representing Queensland in the Senate is a rare honour shared with only 107 other Queenslanders since Federation, and I am proud of my record and the achievements One Nation has accomplished, including wage justice for casual coalminers, pushing the Labor government to act. We are working to recover over $5 billion for casual workers. Additionally, we introduced a bill to make medicinal cannabis more accessible through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 

Our work also includes defeating and removing the cash ban bill, defeating the misinformation-disinformation laws, tabling legislation to prevent vaccine status discrimination, and securing a committee inquiry into terms of reference for a COVID Royal Commission. I promised to hound down those responsible and I will honour that promise. We blocked the Morrison government’s so called Ensuring Integrity Bill, and secured a dairy industry code of conduct.  We aim to end child labour in supply chains of products imported into Australia. 

Senator Hanson’s efforts led to the inclusion of Zolgensma on the PBS for treating spinal muscular dystrophy in children. She also secured an inquiry into family law, resulting in significant improvements. One Nation obtained $500 million for regional road projects in Queensland and funding for many community facilities. We successfully extended community TV licenses twice and are pushing back against child mutilation as a treatment for gender dysphoria. 

This is just a sample of our work, much of it successful through collaboration with the government. I look forward to continuing my work in the 48th parliament as a senator for Queensland with One Nation, a party led by Pauline Hanson, who has tirelessly fought for Australians’ rights at tremendous personal cost.  Pauline Hanson was Australia’s first political prisoner and after 28 years, she remains a formidable figure, casting a shadow over those who advance themselves as alternatives. 

In recent weeks, we’ve outlined One Nation’s plan to increase wealth and opportunity for all Australians. It’s clearly gone over well, because our political rivals have tried to distract from this plan, but our supporters see through it, and our membership has grown.  And the best is yet to come! 

One Nation’s policies will enable Australians to keep an extra $40 billion through policies like joint tax returns, reducing electricity and fuel excises, allowing pensioners to earn without it affecting their pension and raising the tax-free threshold for self-funded retirees to $35,000. We aim to end mass migration, deport illegal immigrants, and remove GST on building products for five years. 

We will also invest in infrastructure projects like Hells Gates Dam, Emu Swamp Dam, the Urannah water project, and extending Inland Rail. These projects will bring logistics benefits and reduce costs for all Australians. 

By cutting government spending, we will pay off national debt by an additional $30 billion a year (annual interest will hit $50 billion a year in 2026-27, making interest payments the single largest item in the budget) .  

One Nation is committed to putting more money in your pocket and restoring wealth and opportunity for our country.  Our commitment to conservative values and practical solutions will continue to guide our efforts in the Senate. We invite all Australians to join us in this mission. 

Transcript

I’d be rich if I had a dollar for every time someone asked, ‘Why can’t conservatives all get on with each other?’ The last few days remind me of these nine simple words made meaningless due to the actions of the very parties calling for conservative unity. These events remind us social media is often used as a form of coercive control through lies. It need not be. Social media can instead inform, inspire and save lives through the ability of social media to offer a community to those who feel life doesn’t care about them—Australians who feel abandoned, vulnerable, alone. These may be divorced men, detransitioners, traditional wives, farming families, vaccine injured and so many others being abandoned in the rush to a woke society that degenerates with each day. 

I’m concerned that social media may be the baby thrown out with the bathwater unless reason and self-control return to public discourse. Encouraging blatantly false statements for political objectives is disgraceful. After personally pointing out the lie, leaving false posts in public shows it’s wilful. I ask those in this debate to consider Proverbs 15:4. ‘Gentle words are a tree of life; however, a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.’ We have an obligation to lead through example to inspire the best outcomes possible, and I will remain focused on doing exactly that. 

One Nation understands that, while human rights are immutable, these are always tempered with common sense. As the saying goes, ‘Just because one can does not mean one should.’ This is the essence of conservatism: to consider we are part of a community composed of other human beings, who we have an obligation to treat with honesty, respect, courtesy and consideration not because the government makes us but because it is the conservative way. As a conservative party, One Nation stands opposed to any restriction on free speech—except one. Free speech stops where incitement to violence starts. That has been my position since coming into the Senate and it remains my position. It matters not who the parties are; violence has no place in a civil society, no place in a conservative society and no place in social media. I want to pay my compliments and extend my appreciation to Senator Babet, John Ruddick and Topher Field, who have in the last few days demonstrated decency, leadership and honesty. 

I thank them for that. Representing the state of Queensland in this Senate is a rare honour shared with only 107 other Queenslanders since Federation. I am proud to be contributing to Queensland and to Australia. I am proud that, in seven years in the Senate, I’ve only missed one day of sitting, and that was spent in hospital. I am proud of how I have decided my vote on the 378 bills that have come before the Senate in that time. Positions are decided on the basis of data and empirical evidence and on the basis of what is best for our beautiful country, and I will continue to do so. You may not agree with every position I’ve taken. Then again, if votes were cast only for politicians with whom one is in perfect agreement, no-one would be elected. 

I am proud of the work One Nation has advanced in the last six years. This includes, amongst many other things, wage justice for casuals in the coalmining industry. My bill shamed the Labor government into passing their own bill after years of delay, yet the Labor bill deliberately hid and failed to recover more than $5 billion stolen over the years from casual workers. This is something we’re remedying. It also includes a bill to down-schedule medicinal cannabis so that every Australian with a medical need can access natural Australian whole-plant medicinal cannabis on prescription available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 

Our work also includes defeating and removing the cash ban bill, and defeating the misinformation and disinformation laws. Such laws will never work, since one person’s misinformation is another person’s missing information. It includes tabling legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of vaccine status, a bill to which we will return in the next parliament, as well as securing a committee inquiry into terms of reference for a royal commission into the COVID pandemic. I promise to hound down those responsible, and I will honour that promise. It also includes a bill to end child labour in the supply chain of products imported into Australia; blocking the Morrison government’s so-called ensuring integrity bill, which unfairly targeted unions; and campaigning for and securing a dairy industry code of conduct. 

Senator Hanson’s personal representation resulted in the addition of Zolgensma, a drug to treat spinal muscular dystrophy and atrophy in children, to the PBS. Senator Hanson secured an inquiry into family law and the family court, which resulted in substantial improvements to the family law system. One Nation secured $500 million for regional road construction projects in Queensland, as well as Rockhampton stadium, Ipswich raceway, Yeppoon Aquatic Centre, $5 million for a driver training centre in Townsville and $12 million for community radio. We campaigned successfully on two occasions to extend community television licences. We are also leading the pushback against child mutilation as a so-called treatment for gender dysphoria.  

This is just a sample of our work, much of it having a successful outcome after working with the government of the day. I look forward to continuing my work in the 48th parliament, if voters so choose, as a senator for Queensland—a senator with One Nation, a party with a leader who has fought tirelessly for the rights of everyday Australians at tremendous personal cost. So-called Liberal Party conservatives colluded with senior Labor Party members to send Pauline Hanson to jail on trumped-up corruption charges to shut her up—she was released on appeal—charges for which her protagonist Tony Abbott has now apologised. Pauline Hanson was Australia’s first political prisoner, and here she is now, after 28 years, still casting a formidable shadow over those who advance themselves as alternatives. 

I look forward to engaging the libertarians, the United Australia Party, the Liberals and Nationals, the Greens and the teals in a battle of ideas, and may the best team win. The preferences of our voters will, of course, go wherever each of our voters place them on their individual ballot papers. In a federal election, parties do not allocate preferences, voters do—for whoever you want. Personally, I will be preferencing third parties ahead of the majors, with the Greens and teals last, of course. 

In the last few weeks I have set out One Nation’s plan to put more money back in the pockets of all Australians while restoring wealth and opportunity for all. This is our entry in the battle of ideas. It’s clearly gone over well, because our political rivals have panicked and have engaged in a classic straw-man play for almost a week. ‘Don’t look at this amazing plan to restore wealth and opportunity to this beautiful country,’ they say. ‘Instead, look over here at outrage confected with a bill that was decided before it came to the Senate in a Liberal, Labor, Greens and teals party stitch up.’ I have yet to see any criticism of those parties that actually voted for the bill, because this isn’t about the bill; it’s about the outrage and the distraction. I’m pleased to see that so many of our supporters saw straight through it, as did our new members. In the last week, One Nation membership has risen. Thank you. 

So what is One Nation’s election platform that has our competition running scared? Let us go over what we’ve released so far, and can I say that the best is yet to come. One Nation’s election platform starts with allowing Australians to keep an extra $40 billion of their money. This includes these costed policies: joint tax returns for couples with one child and one wage earner on the average wage, saving them as much as $9,500; a reduction in electricity prices of 20 per cent immediately and more than 50 per cent in the longer term once new zero-emission coal plants come online; a 26c a litre reduction in the fuel excise; cuts to the alcohol excise, to be announced shortly; allowing pensioners who meet the assets test to earn an income without losing the pension, adding as many as 600,000 experienced, motivated and dedicated older Australians to the workforce; allowing self-funded retirees to earn more before paying tax to encourage further self-funding of retirement. One Nation’s basic policy here is simple: less welfare and more wealth. Other policies include ending mass migration to take the pressure off inflation, especially in housing, and deporting 75,000 illegal immigrants; and removing GST on building products for five years and eliminating the NDIS building code and the six-star energy code as a requirement for new homes, saving as much as $75,000 on the construction cost of a new home. The truth about these building codes is that, in an attempt to be inclusive, we are excluding many young Australians from the housing market. Letting Australians keep more of their own money will be paid for through cutting government spending by $90 billion—all costed—and adding $13 billion in additional gas excise from gas exports. I’ll explain this in more detail closer to the election. 

Finally, One Nation will build, baby, build, including Hells Gates Dam, on the Burdekin River, for irrigation and flood mitigation, to protect coastal Queensland; Emu Swamp Dam, to provide water security to Stanthorpe; the Urannah water project, to provide water security, irrigation and flood mitigation to Broken River in North Queensland, while supplying Moranbah with the water necessary for an expansion in employment and development in the area—watch for that announcement soon; Inland Rail, which will be extended along the forestry route to Wandoan, Banana and then the Port of Gladstone, along with an $8 billion container facility to turn Gladstone into Australia’s premier container port and a multimodal just west of Gladstone; and public works in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. That will bring logistics benefits to all Australians. There will be cheaper and quicker goods going in and out of the country, through Gladstone port. The public works will be announced shortly. 

Finally, with the cut in government spending, we will pay off our national debt by an additional $30 billion a year, the annual interest on which will hit $50 billion a year in 2026-27, making interest payments the single largest item in the budget. One Nation will put more money in your pocket and restore wealth and opportunity for our whole beautiful country. 

/2 Comments/by

Our Plan Will Put $40 Billion Back Into Australian Pockets

We are experiencing the longest per-capita recession in Australian history. Many people are struggling with little light at the end of the tunnel.

Our plan will provide much-needed relief immediately, slash government waste and help build the big infrastructure that will generate more wealth for Australia.

Press Conference

Media Release

One Nation will take a signature plan to the Federal election slashing government spending by up to $90 billion a year while putting $40 billion back into Australians’ pockets and building infrastructure to generate long-term economic growth and wealth creation.

Party leader Senator Pauline Hanson said without substantial spending reform, tax reform and investment in nation-building, Australians’ living standards would continue to go backwards.

“We’re experiencing the longest per-capita recession in Australian history and many people are struggling with little light at the end of the tunnel,” Senator Hanson said. “Our plan will provide much-needed relief immediately, slash government waste and help build the big infrastructure that will generate more wealth for Australia.

“Our plan includes the policies we’ve already announced for aged and veteran pensioners to earn more without penalty, for income splitting and joint tax return filing for couples with dependent children, and to lift the tax-free threshold to $35,000 for self-funded retirees.

“We’ll pull the levers that Labor could, but won’t. Our plan includes changing the National Electricity Market (NEM) rules to enable and incentivise cheaper coal and gas-fired baseload power while also supporting nuclear energy in the medium term. We aim to slash electricity bills by 20%. We will halve the fuel excise to 26c per litre for 12 months, reserving the option to extend this measure even longer, providing relief for motorists and reducing the freight costs which add to the price of our groceries, goods and services.

“Our plan includes increasing the Medicare rebate to better remunerate GPs and promote bulk billing, and crack down on Medicare fraud estimated to be at as much as $3 billion per year. We will end the rort on natural gas by levying royalties at the point of production, creating a domestic gas reserve, raising up to $13 billion per year.”

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts said the plan included a comprehensive spending reform agenda focusing on eliminating unnecessary waste and duplication across a range of departments.

“We anticipate saving approximately $30 billion per year by abolishing the Department of Climate Change and related agencies, regulations and programs,” Senator Roberts said. “We expect to save up to $12.5 billion a year by abolishing the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and bypassing the Aboriginal industry that stands in the way of closing the gaps by providing direct grant assistance to those who need it.

“Our plan includes a review of the functions and costs of the Federal departments of education and housing, eliminating duplication with state government departments and getting rid of costly building code mandates such as the requirement for all new dwellings to be wheelchair compliant.

“We’ll return the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) to its original purpose: providing reasonable and necessary support; introducing means-testing; reducing specialist and non-specialist pay rates to sustainable levels equitable with other health sectors. Our plan includes abolishing the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and rolling its essential functions into the Department of Health, and reviewing about $3 billion worth of medications approved for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) during the pandemic.

“We anticipate saving about $1 billion a year by withdrawing Australia’s participation from the United Nations, UN Refugee Convention, World Health Organisation, World Economic Forum, International Criminal Court and other global bodies which threaten Australia’s sovereignty while adding nothing of real value to our country. We’ll also reduce and redirect foreign aid spending to where it will make a difference, saving up to $3 billion, and review and reduce funding for arts and multicultural programs. We must also withdraw from the Paris agreement.”

Senator Hanson said some of the savings would be directed towards paying the principle off Federal debt now at almost $800 billion (net).

“It makes no sense to keep paying interest which may be as much as $50 billion a year by 2026-27,” she said. “We must reduce the debt to reduce this burden, and return the Budget to balance to prevent the accumulation of more debt.

“Our plan aims to put Australia back in the black, and enable the country to start investing in its future. We’ll end Labor’s effective ban on new dams, prioritising their development to open new agricultural opportunities and provide greater water security in Australia. We’ll revive the scrapped Hells Gate dam near Townsville, among others.

“We’ll back the construction of a fully national passenger and freight circuit incorporating the Inland Rail Project, which we plan to extend to Gladstone to facilitate a proposed major upgrade at that port to make it a multi-billion dollar container traffic and export hub.”

Senator Roberts said One Nation was the only party contesting the 2025 election with a suite of policies that put the interests of Australians and their country first.

“Australians deserve no less,” he said. “So many Australians watch Labor, the Coalition and Greens work hard to implement agendas on behalf of the big corporations, the corrupt union bosses and the hateful activists – but never to the benefit of the Australian people.

“One Nation believes in Australia and its people. Our plan is aimed at turning a lucky country into a clever country, and realising the potential of this great nation.”

Media ReleaseDownload

One Nation to Deport 75,000 Illegals

Media ReleaseDownload

One Nation Calls for GST Moratorium on Building Materials

Media ReleaseDownload

One Nation Will Strengthen Medican and Combat Fraud

Media ReleaseDownload
/10 Comments/by

Trump’s Bold Moves Align with One Nation’s Policies

,

In his first two weeks, President Trump has secured the border, prevented a Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal, and tackled US government waste. He’s withdrawn from the WHO, WEF, and climate change fraud—moves One Nation has supported for 20 years. Executive orders have ended woke DEI and transgender ideology while supporting LGB Americans – again a One Nation policy. 

President Trump isn’t a threat to democracy here or in the United States – he is, however, a threat to the Greens’ toxic ideology.  Australia led the pushback against woke ideology, and Trump’s actions align with One Nation policies.  

One Nation is proud to put Australia first, just as Trump puts America first. 

Transcript

The election of President Donald Trump was certified in every American state, by Democrats and Republicans alike and in Congress. The 2024 election was a textbook application of the United States’ republic model of government. In his first two weeks, President Trump has secured the border against illegal arrivals, overnight adding Mexican and Canadian troops to police their side of the border and lifting threats of tariffs. President Trump has prevented the Chinese takeover of the strategic Panama Canal, and his team have made a huge stab at putting the cleaners through US government waste, some of which appears criminal and seditious in nature. President Trump has withdrawn the USA from the World Health Organization, from the World Economic Forum and from climate change tyranny and fraud. These are moves One Nation has advocated for 20 years. Executive orders have destroyed woke DEI and transgender ideology while reaffirming support for gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans. Again, this is One Nation policy. 

President Trump is not a threat to democracy here or in the United States. He is a threat to the Greens, who are watching the pushback to their neo-Marxist identity politics. Their toxic ideology is rightly being dispatched to history’s sewers. President Trump did not start the pushback against woke ideology; Australia did when everyday Australians rejected the Voice proposal, and the Irish did when they rejected the fragmentation of their families in a referendum there. President Donald Trump’s actions are in accord with One Nation policies, and of that we are very, very proud. Trump puts America first; One Nation proudly puts Australia first. 

/3 Comments/by

Net Zero is Driving Unaffordable Grocery and Food Prices

, ,

Why are grocery prices still going up when we have better technology and more efficient farms than ever before?

The answer is that the cost of energy is making your grocery bills more expensive. Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton are equally committed to making electricity more expensive and increasing the price of food.

One Nation is the only party that will end net-zero policies to return cheap power and cheaper groceries to Australians.

Transcript

Yesterday, Richard Forbes of Independent Food Distributors Australia told the Australian newspaper: 

As far as I am concerned, the government’s energy policy has and continues to increase the price of food. 

Employers supplying food to major supermarkets and thousands of cafes, restaurants and pubs around the country have launched a revolt against the government’s energy policies, urging more gas and coal-fired power to bring down electricity prices. 

The managing director of Western Australia’s largest independent food distributor said his company’s electricity bill had doubled in the past three years. This energy policy driving up food prices is called net zero. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton are completely committed to the net zero policies that are driving up the price of your groceries. As part of that net zero policy, coal and gas generators are told to turn off completely whenever wind and solar decide to turn on, which is unpredictable. 

The problem is coal-fired power stations are what’s called base-load power; they’re designed to run constantly, not to flick on and off like they’re being forced to now. That abuse leads to higher maintenance costs and, in the worst case, power stations failing, blowing up. Even with this unsustainable switching-on-and-off situation, the coal burnt in a coal-fired power station costs just $21 a megawatt hour. This financial year, solar and wind capital South Australia’s average power price has been $200 a megawatt hour, a bit under 10 times higher than a coal station’s fuel costs. 

Instead of making coal stations flick on and off completely, run them continuously to provide base-load power, and electricity will instantly get cheaper and more reliable. Wind and solar can top up the rest—when they work—and households can keep using their own solar power—simple. Only One Nation will bring down power prices down and grocery bills to put more money in your pocket. 

/3 Comments/by

Labor Pressed on Cost of Renewables Plan

,

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.

/3 Comments/by

Labor is Hiding Australia’s Largest Wage Theft

,

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. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

The Impact of Net-Zero on the Environment and Farmland

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.

/3 Comments/by

Energy Reality: 81% Coal and Gas Reliance

,

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.

/by

2SM Radio with Chris Smith

,

A pleasure to join Chris Smith on 2SM radio network to talk about putting more money back in Australians’ pockets.

One Nation has always stood up for making policy in the interests of Australians, not foreign unelected organisations.

/by