Encouraging Competition Among Unions Will Protect Workers

,

I spoke in support of Senator Lambie’s Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024. For context, I provided the senate chamber with the facts on Australia’s largest wage theft. This casual labour rort stole on average around $33,000 per casual coal miner per year in central Queensland and the Hunter Valley through Chandler Macleod Group, a subsidiary of a foreign multinational, Recruit Holdings — one of the world’s largest labour hire companies.

How did this happen? For a decade, CFMEU bosses have betrayed the coal miners they are supposed to protect. The Fair Work Commission has unfairly betrayed workers by approving dodgy Enterprise Agreements. Meanwhile, the Fair Work Ombudsman, the last line of defence for the workers, has sat on its hands and refused to act. Consultants and industry lawyers, some with over 40 years of experience in industrial relations prepared a report looking into this casual wage theft. They were stunned by what they’ve now confirmed is happening across our coal industry.

The current Queensland government is trying to prevent the development of the new Red Union that is now making inroads into the previous membership of failed mainstream unions like the QNU and QPU that have failed to adequately represent their members in disputes with employers. Membership has passed 18,000 and is rapidly growing. What’s at stake here is the issue of freedom of choice. There are thousands of women working within the Textile Clothing Footware sector which is currently part of the CFMEU. These women need to be able to choose who they wish to be represented by and they should be able to make those choices by secret ballot. This is necessary to ensure that intimidation by certain union leader thugs is kept to a minimum.

I support this Bill as it is good legislation, supports vulnerable women and is a further step in recognising the rights to freedom of choice in determining an important issue of autonomy for women. The ability of these women to choose to demerge from the CFMEU must be confirmed.

Transcript

Thousands of casual miners working in central Queensland or the Hunter Valley are each owed, on average, for wage theft, backpay of around $33,000 per year for every year of service. That’s $33,000 per year. If you’re a casual, you’re likely to be owed an estimated $33,000 per year as a victim of Australia’s largest wage theft. How? It’s due to the CFMEU union bosses betraying and controlling workers, because the CFMEU was the sole union in coal mining production. When entities lack competition, they tend to behave with impunity due to a lack of accountability. They can do whatever they bloody well want. 

We support Senator Lambie’s Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 because it encourages competition for the unions and gives freedom of choice to workers, and it portrays fairness. I’ll move to Senator Lambie’s excellent bill after closing on the largest wage theft scam, because that illustrates, yet again, the importance of Senator Lambie’s bill to protect workers from unaccountable union bosses. 

A team of experienced workplace lawyers, consultants and coalminers reviewed and analysed five significant labour hire coalmining enterprise agreements. The CFMEU were involved in, were a party to, or signed all five agreements. This is the report of these experts. The Fair Work Commission approved all five agreements. The enterprise agreements all underpay the award. For example, for the CoreStaff 2018 enterprise agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $22,623. It gets worse. For the FES 2018 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $27,563. For the WorkPac 2019 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $33,555. For the Chandler MacLeod 2020 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated $39,341. For the Tesa Group 2022 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $40,645. 

It’s all due to collusion between the CFMEU, labour hire companies and the Fair Work Commission. The CFMEU signed and approved all. The CFMEU agreed in writing—we’ve seen the letter—to not pursue complaints that workers raised. The Chandler MacLeod group, one of the parties to the enterprise agreement, is a subsidiary of the world’s largest labour hire company, Recruit Holdings—a foreign, multinational. How did this happen? For a decade, CFMEU union bosses have betrayed coalminers. The Fair Work Commission has betrayed workers in approving enterprise agreements paying far less than the award, and the Fair Work Ombudsman turned a blind eye to it all and refused to get involved. The CFMEU’s mining division, the Fair Work Commission and some large labour hire companies have colluded to screw workers using enterprise agreements that are unlawful. 

As I said, we commissioned an experienced team to investigate Australia’s largest wage theft case involving thousands of miners across the industry for up to a decade. They were stunned at the brazen collusion between the CFMEU union bosses, employers, Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman. Some of these consultants and lawyers have over 40 years of experience in industrial relations and were stunned with what they confirmed was happening across our coal industry. The workers’ supposed protectors, the CFMEU union bosses and the government’s Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman, have cruelly betrayed workers en masse. I’ve written to the current and former members for the Hunter in federal parliament, to CFMEU union bosses and to Minister Burke. All have done nothing. They buried the issue to protect union bosses. Let’s move to Senator Lambie’s bill. I support Senator Lambie’s bill. The issue she raises is symptomatic of many large unions and the decline of the union movement under unaccountable union bosses, who are tarnishing the movement. Labor’s recent legislation giving enormous power to union bosses will eventually hurt the union movement and unions overall because it entrenches the huge monopoly power of union bosses and removes accountability. The union movement will crumble because of that lack of accountability. Workers will abandon it, as they already are. 

An essential freedom of the Australian workplace scene should be the freedom for workers to choose who they want to represent their interests through a choice as to the union they want to join. There are thousands of women in the textile, clothing and footwear union, currently part of the CFMEU. Many of those women have expressed dissatisfaction with the representation the CFMEU provides them through their membership. Unfortunately, many of these members, who often have limited English language proficiency, are handicapped by having experienced exploitation, underpayment, intimidation and poor working conditions. The Labor government, with the Greens, have to date voted to prevent these women from exercising their right to choose to leave the CFMEU. These women are afraid of intimidation after losing their right to an anonymous vote—women afraid, in Australia, of union thugs. This is as a result of the passing of the draconian Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. 

As a coalminer working at coalfaces, mostly underground, around Australia, I was a proud union member—back when the coalminers union was the Miners Federation, a strong, honest union. As a mine manager and, later, as an executive general manager, I dealt with many honourable union delegates who strongly spoke for, and served, their members’ interests. The union movement has a proud history, and in Australia that includes a proud history of women playing a lead role in the movement. It’s a fact, though, that as a result of some powerful union bosses who could only be described as cowardly, dishonest thugs or possibly criminals there’s been a decline in union membership and subsequent loss of union power in the Australian industrial landscape. This means a loss of membership funds and other moneys that have historically flowed to the Labor Party. Labor hates to lose campaign money. 

The TCF women do not wish to be members of the CFMEU and to be associated with an organisation that has such a poor reputation and is not providing service in exchange for union fees. In recent years, the CFMEU have been caught selling out their members to benefit large, multinational labour hire firms and enrich the CFMEU, at the members’ expense, by unprecedented wage theft. 

The current Queensland government is trying to prevent the development of the new Red Union, which is making inroads into the previous membership of failed mainstream unions, like the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union and the Queensland Teachers Union, which have failed to adequately protect and represent their members in disputes with employers. Red Union membership is now almost 19,000 and has rapidly grown in the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland and the Teachers Professional Association, and now it’s growing in every state around our country. Teachers and nurses, not union bosses, lead the new and rapidly growing union. Fees are around half those of the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union, which provide inferior service and donate membership funds to the Queensland Labor machine. That’s why the Queensland Labor government has stepped in with an attempt to ban the Red Union—to protect the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union and the millions of dollars flowing to the Labor machine’s election campaign. So we have the Queensland Labor government trying to ban the formation of a new union because it nobbles them. Queensland union bosses publicly and openly showed their power in appointing the new Premier of Queensland. We saw it in Queensland: union bosses saying who would be the next Premier. It’s Steven Miles. 

What’s at issue here is freedom of choice. These women need to be able to choose who they wish to represent them and should be able to make those choices in a secret ballot. This is necessary to ensure that intimidation from thugs is kept to a minimum. I support this bill and I commend Senator Lambie for it. It’s solid, effective legislation. It supports vulnerable women and is a further step both in recognising the right to freedom of choice and in determining an important issue of autonomy for women and for all workers. The ability of these women to choose to demerge from the CFMEU must be confirmed. Union membership must be voluntary and there must be freedom of choice as to who someone’s representative should be. That is for the benefit of the union movement because, with choice comes competition and then accountability. 

We support this bill that gives women and workers rights that union bosses have stolen. We call for a public and parliamentary discussion on restoring industrial justice and basic human rights and freedom of choice to workers. We applaud Senator Lambie for her bill as another step towards freeing workers from powerful union bosses. 

/3 Comments/by

Luxury EVs for ASEAN-Australia Summit a PR Stunt

,

In yet more wasteful virtue signalling, Labor is laying on an extra fleet of luxury EVs for the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit from 4th-6th March 2024 to shuttle the hundreds of delegates around Melbourne at the taxpayers expense.

As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting, like Davos, will get through copious amounts of meat and dairy. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media.

The insanity of the Net Zero dog and pony show gets worse. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, high end luxury European EVs from COMCAR services are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. COMCAR staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne.

Why is the PM again wasting tax dollars on tokenism? One Nation is keen to uncover just how much this stunt is costing Australian taxpayers.

Transcript

Next week the 11 leaders of countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will arrive in Melbourne for the biannual ASEAN Summit. Hundreds of delegates will be shuttled around Melbourne at taxpayers’ expense. One Nation welcomes meetings like ASEAN that encourage countries to be good neighbours, and One Nation supports spending only what’s necessary to achieve a good outcome.  

As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting will get through copious amounts of luxury food. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media. What really got my attention is today’s Australian newspaper, with an article stating that the Prime Minister has required all vehicles provided to delegates to be electric. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, electric Comcars are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. Comcar staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne. Why put on this tokenistic superficial show of fealty to the globalist electrification agenda at all?  

In the last few weeks, we’ve seen leading car makers do a U-turn on plans to sell only electric cars due to low demand, low profit and escalating scarcity of materials. In fact, despite heavy subsidies, last year in Europe EVs accounted for only 14 per cent of sales. Australia is half that. Insurance premiums are skyrocketing as damaged EVs prove very expensive to repair—one reason EVs lose value at twice the rate of cars with internal combustion engines. They’re lemons. The amount of minerals and energy needed to make, maintain and recycle electric vehicles is so high that EV stands for ‘environmental vandalism’.  

One Nation would like to know how much this exercise in virtue signalling is costing our Australian taxpayers. 

/3 Comments/by

Traitor Former Politician MAY Still Have Access to Parliament House

,

The Government has refused to confirm whether the former politician who sold out Australia to advance the interests of a foreign regime still has access to Parliament House. Former parliamentarians are automatically entitled to passes which grant them access to the private areas of Parliament House in Canberra.

In the words of ASIO spy chief, Mike Burgess, the former politician that “sold out their country to advance the interests of a foreign regime” could be sitting in an office in Parliament House right now and no one would know.

Instead of treating this concern seriously, the Government’s response to my question on this was laughter.

The Government, or the ASIO Chief, must name this traitor as soon as possible. This cloud over Parliament’s security must be fixed immediately.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. When will the government name the former Australian politician that ASIO Chief Mike Burgess yesterday referenced as someone who sold out Australia to advance the interests of a foreign regime? 

Senator Gallagher: I thank Senator Roberts for the question, and I note the annual threat assessment that was delivered last night by the director-general of ASIO. We have utmost confidence in our security and intelligence services. The director-general made a comment about this. He was specifically asked about this last night. He said he’d made a deliberate decision not to name the individual, and he provided reasons for this. The government respects his judgement. He has our 100 per cent support. He has the full picture, and he made an informed decision. 

The threat assessment made clear that we need to continue to be vigilant and sober in how we respond to threats, and this is what we are doing. The annual threat assessment is an assessment made by ASIO. It is delivered by the director-general of that organisation. It’s not something that the government authors. It’s a document that is very much the director-general and ASIO’s to do so, and he has all the information available to him. He made a decision about that. If that decision changes, that’s his decision as well. It is not a decision for the government to make. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, former parliamentarians, as I understand it, have an automatic pass to enter Parliament House. The former politician who sold out this country could be in this building right now, in a parliamentarian’s office, and the office holder, MP or senator, would have no idea they’re talking to a spy. Why won’t you name the traitor now? 

Senator Gallagher: I think passes to this building are a matter for the Presiding Officers—the rules around that. 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

Senator Gallagher: I think it is, isn’t it? 

An honourable senator: Yes. 

Senator Gallagher: Yes, it is. 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

Senator Gallagher: Well, it is. Sorry, but it’s not a matter that the government is responsible for. In relation to the question you asked, which was about naming an individual, it’s a matter for the director-general of ASIO. If he were to choose to name an individual, that would be a matter for him. As part of his annual threat assessment, he made a decision to raise the issue, I think, and to rightly point to the fact that foreign interference is an issue. It’s an issue that all of us, as members of parliament, need to be aware of— (Time expired) 

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you have just put the Presiding Officer in a difficult position. Why is this government afraid to say the c-word and acknowledge the country that is the greatest risk to Australia’s interests and largest perpetrator of foreign interference—China, the Chinese Communist Party? 

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure of the question really. We talk about China all the time as a government. We’ve been seeking to stabilise the relationship. We’ve been seeking to remove some of the trade bans. But we’ve also been very clear that we must disagree where we do, and, where we can agree, we should reach agreement. But there are things that are in our national interests that we may disagree on, and then we will be upfront about that. We will always act in our country’s national interest. That’s what we’ve done from the first day we were appointed and it’s what we will continue to do. That’s what guides us in relation to our interactions and our work across the world. There are a number of countries that we engage with regularly, but it’s always in our national interest that we do that. 

Media Release

Media-Release-1Download
/37 Comments/by

Truth Wins: Vaccine Mandates Were Unlawful

,

I was disappointed in the Minister’s response to my questions about the implications of the QLD Supreme Court judgement on the COVID ‘vaccine’ mandates. I expected more clarity and less deflection from the Minister. These decisions were made by the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties, there can be no avoiding the fallout form their actions across the COVID period.

While the ruling was made on the basis of the human rights act in QLD, identical provisions are in place in Victoria and the ACT, suggesting the decision is not just a QLD issue. The government is arrogantly ignoring the reality of the situation and failing to read the room when it comes to this topic.

People have had enough of high-handed, out of touch government. One Nation is calling for the Royal Commission into our COVID response to be announced right now!

Transcript

I take note of Senator Gallagher’s answer to my question on the Queensland Supreme Court’s decision. The court found measures relating to COVID were mandated on a number of Queensland workers without adequate consideration of their human rights as required under the Queensland Human Rights Act. Identical human rights provisions apply in Victoria and the ACT. So certainly there is the probability of the same or similar decisions being made in other jurisdictions.  

I’d hoped the government would be fully aware of the implications of this decision. I was disappointed. The minister deflected and failed to address the substance of the question, so here are some more reasons the minister should get clarity on this issue. An employee who is fired as the outcome from a vaccine mandate can sue the employer, which may be the government, for wrongful dismissal. An employee who took a vaccine to keep their job as a result of a vaccine mandate, who is now vaccine injured, can sue for damages. Class-action lawsuits will result from this decision. The Commonwealth will be as much in the firing line as Victoria and Queensland.  

It’s not just mandates. Evidence has been presented over the last few months that closing schools and denying children education has caused a permanent drop in children’s educational potential and medical health—permanent harm. Last week, a landmark study of 99 million people including Australians found the injections caused an increase in blood clots, brain injuries and heart disease of up to 600 per cent. These injuries are legally actionable. Whether it’s over mandates, vaccine injuries, education or business closures, victims will be joining class-action lawsuits sooner rather than later.  

All levels of government in Australia made terrible mistakes during COVID. Only a royal commission has the powers and the resources to decide what mistakes were made and how the victims of those mistakes can be fairly compensated. This will be expensive, yet failure to act through a royal commission will create a running sore on public administration for a generation. Only an objective royal commission will restore trust in governments and in the healthcare sector. 

/by

Government Doxxing Australian Companies Over Gender Pay

,

It’s ironic that Labor can suddenly define what a woman is when they want to talk about a gender pay gap.

By publicly sending out information on 5000 Australian companies and claiming they’ve failed to sufficiently pay women in comparison with men, the government has maliciously misrepresented the companies and is effectively doxxing them.

The devil is in the details on this issue. Once you look closely, the myth of a gender pay gap falls apart. The report doesn’t try to compare like for like.

We don’t want a cookie cutter society inflicted on us by ‘leftist’ government bureaucracies. Differences should be celebrated. Where individuals choose to work longer hours, or choose to raise a family, these are differences that should never be ironed out by publicly shaming companies into following the Environment, Social Governance goals of the United Nations.

We need to continue to support men and women in making those different choices, especially when it comes to building a family.

One Nation rejects the divisiveness of gender politics. We support stronger families and the freedom for men and women to make their own choices about work.

Transcript

It’s ironic the Labor government are seeking to rush laws on doxxing through this parliament when they’ve just committed one of Australia’s largest doxxings. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency published a list of 5,000 businesses across Australia and detailed the wages they pay their employees. Doxxing is the act of publicly providing identifiable information about an individual or organisation, usually with malicious intent. With the release of this report, these companies have been battered in national news headlines accusing them of huge gender pay gaps. The cries of the outrage brigade have been heard across the country. They claim that these evil companies have huge gender pay gaps and that the evil patriarchy is in full control, making sure no woman in Australia will ever get paid fairly. 

Make no mistake, the private information about these companies has been published for the purpose of whacking them around in national headlines; it’s easy to see. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report is just a roundabout way of doxxing Australian companies, and taxpayers fund the agency $11 million a year to do it. I mentioned details at the beginning of my speech, yet the one thing that’s actually missing from the report is detail. The figures don’t make a fair comparison. 

Don’t let the headlines fool you; this report is not a measure of whether a man and a woman doing the same job at the same company are paid differently. That’s been illegal for decades. The report simply takes the median of total wages and compares them. No accounting is made for whether the men and women work in different jobs or whether they are in part-time jobs. There are no adjustments for overtime or seniority—the list of exclusions goes on and on. 

If a female air steward gets paid less than the male pilot up front, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will say that that’s a gender pay gap at that airline. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report is one of the most oversimplified, flawed, misleading uses of statistics we’ve seen from government, and that’s saying something! If we were to truly measure the impact of sexism on wages, we would look at men and women doing the same job at the same time for the same rate. A Harvard study entitled Why do women earn less than men? Evidence from bus and train operators did exactly that. Among men and women paid the exact same rates, they found the small wage difference was entirely due to the fact that men worked 83 per cent more overtime and were twice as likely to accept a shift on short notice. Fathers were more likely than childless men to want the extra cash from overtime. Fathers working harder to provide a better life for their children and their wives—that must be the ‘toxic masculinity’ the control side of politics, the so-called Left, complains about. In short, it comes down to choice. Men and women should always have the freedom to choose how they want to work or support their family. Given the option, they will choose differently. 

Norway is considered one of the most gender equal countries in the world, yet it has some of the most extreme policies with the intention of balancing out gender differences. Despite all of the incentives, Norway still has a 17 per cent wage gap, as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency would measure it, because women still choose jobs that allow them to take care of families. 

Of course, this agency report is the brainchild of the Labor government, bent on dividing women and men for political purposes. If we’re too busy fighting each other about a gender pay gap that doesn’t actually exist, then we’re not going to pay attention to the real issues the government is sneaking through this parliament every day. The idea that women are only useful if they abandon their children and return to the workforce to be a cog in the economy is one of the greatest scams of New Age feminism. Instead of pretending everyone fits into one cookie-cutter shape, we should be acknowledging and celebrating differences. We should be supporting men and women to make the choices they want to make. We should be reforming the tax system to recognise the work that the stay-at-home parent, whether man or woman, does to build a family for the benefit of this country and for themselves. Imagine if we used some of the $14 billion a year currently subsidising day care to instead support families at home. 

One Nation will always fight for stronger supported families and for men and women to choose the work they want. Unlike the $11-million-a-year Workplace Gender Equality Agency, we’ll always reject the divisiveness of gender politics, and we will always choose to celebrate our wonderful complementary differences. 

/2 Comments/by

Is ACMA Biased Towards the Left?

,

During recent Senate Estimates I checked with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) as to why it did not publicise complaints about the ABC, yet pushed out press releases for similar breaches by the Sky Network.

I also inquired into the Optus outage last year to see whether there is any new information around the failure of emergency 000 calls and whether Starlink (high speed satellite internet) was being considered as a backup in the future.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. On 26 April 2023, you issued a press release about the Sky News program Outsiders for breaches of industry codes. On 20 March 2023, in relation to the ABC, in response to Senator Henderson, you agreed that the ABC breached the codes during their coverage of a community meeting in Alice Springs. You endorsed the ABC Ombudsman’s finding that there were breaches of the code yet published no press release about that, from what we can see. Why does a conservative news service cop a full press release when you conclude they’ve breached the code but when the ABC breaches a code there’s barely a peep from you publicly? 

Ms O’Loughlin: I might need to refer to my colleagues for the details of that circumstance. 

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. 

Ms O’Loughlin: I would have to say that we put out media releases for pretty much every breach that we look at under the Broadcasting Services Act, be it a national or a commercial broadcaster. I can take it on notice. There are certainly circumstances in the last year where we have put out media releases on the ABC. So it is not our practice to discriminate between types of broadcasters. We like to make transparent our decisions about breaches across the board. I might just see whether or not my colleagues have anything to add. 

Ms Chapman: In the instance of the ABC Alice Springs issue, we didn’t undertake a full formal investigation. We fully considered the matter. We looked at the content. We considered the report by the ombudsman at the time. We didn’t find a formal breach in that instance. That was on the basis that the ABC themselves had found a breach. The ABC themselves conceded that there were issues with the broadcast and that there was considerablemedia attention at the time which highlighted the findings that the ABC made. So we didn’t put out a press release because we didn’t make a formal finding. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Ms O’Loughlin: I will add to that. I just found something in my notes. For example, from the investigation we did on the ABC’s Four Corners program called The Big Lie, we did a media release for that on 21 December 2022 because we had found breach findings in that program. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept your answer from before. I refer to your letter, Ms O’Loughlin, to Senator Henderson on 20 March that is file reference BM11801. You mentioned in the second last paragraph the matter conducted by the ABC about the circumstances attaching to this matter, including any changes to its editorial processes. Did the ABC advise of any changes to its editorial processes? 

Ms O’Loughlin: I don’t have the letter in front of me. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll read it. 

Ms Chapman: We did seek a response from the ABC, but I think we need to take on notice whether we received a response. 

Senator ROBERTS: I will read the second last paragraph. However, the ACMA has requested that the ABC keep it informed about the outcome of any further internal investigation conducted by the ABC about the circumstances attaching to this matter (including any changes to its editorial processes) and any additional steps that may be taken by the ABC as a result. 

Ms O’Loughlin: Senator, we will take that on notice for you. I don’t have that in my pack. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What does it do to the trust of a media company when it has obvious bias? 

Ms O’Loughlin: Senator, I don’t think that’s something on which I can express an opinion. I do think in our experiences broadcasters take very seriously their obligations under the various regulatory codes that they are subjected to, which do come to, in most cases, provisions around bias, impartiality and factual accuracy. 

Senator ROBERTS: It would erode trust if it is done often? 

Ms O’Loughlin: That would probably be a matter for the broadcasters to comment on, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will ask some questions here briefly. If they’ve been covered, just tell me so. I’ve checked with Senator Cadell. He hasn’t covered this one. Could you briefly explain the obligation for carriers to allow network switching for Triple Zero calls and why this didn’t happen during the Optus outage? The second part you’ve already discussed at length, so I’m not interested in that. Could you please explain the obligation? 

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly, Senator. The obligation is usually referred to as the mobile camp-on provisions. That is a globally standardised arrangement. Where emergency call services can’t be delivered by a particular carrier for a particular reason, those networks allow those calls to camp on to their network for them to be delivered to the emergency call service. That’s what— 

Senator ROBERTS: Free automatic switching? 

Ms O’Loughlin: So it’s an automatic transfer of those particular calls going to emergency call services to camp on to another network. If I have that incorrect, my colleague will let me know. 

Senator ROBERTS: She’s got it. Thank you. Are there any fines applicable for carriers failing to allow switching or failing to make switching work for Triple Zero calls? Would Optus be facing that? 

Ms O’Loughlin: I think part of what we’ll be looking at in our investigation is what was the reason, if in fact that was the reason, some emergency calls didn’t get through. As I mentioned earlier, it’s still not very clear. We’re still in information gathering mode about why that didn’t work. I will ask Mr Fenton to go over some of the potential regulatory responses we may have, if we do, in fact, find any breaches. But it is early days. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Mr Fenton: I will clarify again that these are enforcement options available to the ACMA if it does find breaches of the determination in question—the emergency call determination. The ACMA can issue a formal warning. It can issue a remedial direction to take action to comply. It can accept a court enforceable undertaking. There are infringement penalties available currently set at $18,780 per contravention. It is open to the ACMA to apply to the Federal Court for penalties as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: This is an interesting quirk. Does per contravention mean each phone call?  

Mr Fenton: It would depend on the construct of the particular obligation in question. But it can apply to a specific contravention. Once again, it comes back to the actual structure. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I understand. Thank you. Finally, it strikes me that there is the Starlink service, which covers almost everywhere in Australia. It can access the sky, and that’s pretty much everywhere. Would it be a good back-up for text messages and limited voice conversations and emergency calls to fit into that network? 

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s a really interesting question. I think there’s a lot of interest in Starlink and, indeed, other satellite services, such as low earth orbit satellite services, that may be able to provide direct to handset text or, indeed, calls which are now starting to emerge. There is the potential for that to really benefit particularly people in regional or remote areas or areas of Australia that have trouble getting signals. I think the department is commencing to look at that in more depth to see what that potential is. There has been quite a lot of strong interest internationally as well, as you can imagine, from particularly countries who have the same sort of issues we have in trying to get signals into various areas. The United States recently, from my reading, had come to the conclusion that technology was just not quite mature enough at the moment to be a backstop for emergency calls but could be in the future. I think the department is going to be looking at whether that is a potential in the future. We think that’s a really exciting development in the satellite space. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate the direct answers. 

/2 Comments/by

Labor Dashes Hopes for Murray Darling Basin Community

,

The Albanese Labor Government are shifting the goalposts on the Murray Darling Basin Plan. There’s only 42GL left to complete the water acquisitions across the whole basin, so the pain is almost over and there’s still the 450GL of water for South Australia, which means this doesn’t need to be taken from irrigators. And there’s another 3 years to find that water through capital works.

In this Estimates session I asked whether these last few measures would be the end of the nightmare for Basin communities. I was expecting a yes – instead I got a no.

It seems the bureaucracy and the Albanese Government are hell bent on taking everything for themselves, forcing even more farmers off their land. Their answer certainly sounds like they intend to demand more water for the environment when the plan ends in a few years, starting the nightmare over again.

Landholders, including farmers, just want to know what the government is planning so they can adjust. Clearly the Government does not understand farming to know this, or simply don’t care.

The science underpinning the scheme is flawed, which is unsustainable, hurts farmers, fibre producers and the environment.

One Nation would complete the remainder of this plan and then call it done. No more water to be taken off the farmers. We would also sell the 78GL of water over-purchased by the department back to the farmers, to grow food and fibre to feed and to clothe the world.

Anything else is sabotaging the bush. #nofarmersnofood

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS:  With all the numbers flying around, I feel confused sometimes; things don’t seem to change. I would like some clarification. Talk of water buybacks created a lot of anger when the Albanese government came to power. That talk seems to have gone quiet. There was a plan to buy back 44.3 gigalitres immediately, a threat to use buybacks to get another figure to complete the plan—I will raise that in a minute. How much has been purchased so far? Your website is still saying that you need another 38 gigalitres, yet we heard the tender was oversubscribed.  

Ms O’Connell:  In terms of the open tender, we were seeking 44.3 gigalitres for the Bridging the Gap component. I want to be specific here; that was for Bridging the Gap. It was oversubscribed. We had 250 tender responses, which accounted to 90.34 gigalitres in terms of across the catchments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So double?  

Ms O’Connell:  Yes, just over double. These Bridging the Gap requirements are catchment specific. There is a certain amount of water to be recovered in a certain catchment. It was oversubscribed in total, but specifically we are purchasing to an amount in a particular catchment. It also has to represent the right type of water, and value for money, before we proceed. From that 44.3 gigalitre tender we have agreed to purchase 26.25 gigalitres towards that target. We will, as a result of that, complete the requirements in three of those specific catchments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So you still have the fourth catchment to do?  

Ms O’Connell:  There are six catchments in total.  

Senator ROBERTS:  You still have three of the six to do.  

Ms O’Connell:  That’s right; to complete the recovery.  

Mr Southwell:  That is correct. There are three catchments that we expect to recover through this tender, subject to all contracts being finalised, and three to go. I might take this opportunity to give an overview of where we are in the process. The tender sought to recover 44.3 gigalitres. When all of those contracts are signed, we expect to have spent around $205 million. Contracts are still being signed. That is important to note in terms of where we are up to. A table on our website provides an outline of each catchment, the volumes we expect to have recovered and the volumes that remain.  

Senator Davey:  That table was only uploaded today.  

Mr Southwell:  It was uploaded yesterday, I think, Senator.  

Senator Davey:  Late yesterday.  

Mr Southwell:  I understood it was later than 9 am yesterday morning.  

Senator ROBERTS:  You will still buy the 90 gigalitres that came in as tenders?  

Mr Southwell:  No.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Just the 26.25?  

Mr Southwell:  That tender process was specifically for Bridging the Gap, and the volumes that we are purchasing are for Bridging the Gap.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That is 26.25?  

Mr Southwell:  Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS:  I note that the Restoring our Rivers Framework, currently under consultation, is for the full 450 gigalitres South Australian flow; your website says 424. Can I have this confirmed: this is the same bucket of water, whether it is 424 or 450—not two buckets?  

Ms O’Connell:  No, there are not two buckets. The requirement is 450 gigalitres, of which 26 gigalitres is contracted, delivered or underway. The remaining component is 424. So it is one lot of 450, with 26 already recovered.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Senator Hanson-Young, in an interview with the ABC last November, said there was a further 300 gigalitres of water to be found to complete the plan, not 38 gigalitres. This was not including the 450 gigalitres. Is that statement correct? If so, can you explain how that figure is arrived at?  

Ms O’Connell:  We would have to see what exactly she was referring to and get that quoted number.  

Chair:  Could you table it? Do you have it with you?  

Senator ROBERTS:  I don’t have it with me, no.  

Mr Fredericks:  We will take that on notice.  

Ms O’Connell:  For us to be able to answer that, would you be able to provide the document as well, so we can make sure we are referring to the right thing?  

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes. By our calculations, if you get the remaining 38 gigalitres on buybacks, you will also have 78 gigalitres of excess purchases in some bailees. Will you sell this back to the farmers?  

Ms O’Connell:  On Bridging the Gap, which is what we have been talking about, it is a catchment-specific amount that we need to recover. We don’t intend to buy more than what is needed. There is a minor amount of incidental overrecovery that happens when you buy water, but that is minor and incidental. Our intention is to bridge the gap through the 44.3 gigalitres.  

Ms Connell:  In relation to the 78 gigalitres of overrecovery you referred to, there are two issues to highlight. The number of overrecoveries won’t be confirmed until New South Wales water resource plans are accredited. A significant proportion of that figure relates to overrecoveries in New South Wales. The other thing to keep in mind is that water is currently held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and used at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Minister, once you get that figure, the 38, and the 450, minus what is underway now, is it done? Is there anything else? Can what remains of farming in the Murray Darling Basin get on with growing food and fibre to feed and clothe the world, without this nightmare of the plan hanging over farmers? Is that the end of it?  

Senator McAllister:  I think the best way to describe the government’s intentions is to implement the plan in full. That was the purpose of the legislation that went through the parliament. As you have observed, there is substantial work to do. That work includes the recovery associated with Bridging the Gap, which the officials have been talking about. It also includes establishment of the framework for reaching the 450-gigalitre target. The government is presently consulting on that framework. That document is in the public domain and we are seeking public comment about that approach. There are other elements of the work associated with completing the plan; the officials can talk you through that. Rather than accepting your summary of the work before us, I would prefer to point to the way the government characterises the work that is underway.  

Senator ROBERTS:  What amounts are required to finish the plan? That is what I heard you say: when the plan is finished, that is it—no more buybacks.  

Ms Connell:  In the first instance, the plan doesn’t finish. It is an ongoing instrument, subject to a review by the Murray Darling Basin Authority in 2026. That will be the first review of the Basin Plan. Under the current Basin Plan, there are two key targets.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That means that the plan could change.  

Chair:  Senator ROBERTS, the river is a living thing. The reason why we ended up with the Murray Darling Basin Plan in the first place was over-extraction and the utilisation of the river.  

Senator Davey:  Happy to replace the chair to answer questions from the committee. Thank you, Chair.  

Chair:  Thank you, Senator Davey. Minister, maybe you could help us out here. It is a point of clarification that is worth making.  

Senator McAllister:  I am happy for officials to talk through the approach. The main point is that the government’s commitment is to implement the Basin Plan in full. Under the previous government, insufficient progress was made on some important initiatives. Progress basically stalled for an entire decade. We talked about this a lot during the committee stage of the Senate debate. You are aware of the government’s perspective on this. It is for that reason that we had to change the legislation. We are presently consulting on the key initiatives that are underway. The officials can talk you through all of the important next steps.  

Ms O’Connell:  In terms of the Basin Plan, it is about sustainable river systems long-term management. There are two major components in the plan to be fulfilled that need to be delivered. We have been talking about Bridging the Gap. The remainder is the 450 gigalitres. There are new legislative time frames for delivering those that provide more time, more options, greater flexibility and greater accountability to be able to deliver on those targets. Beyond that, there is a review role for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in terms of the long-term sustainability and sustainable management of our river systems. That review is not until 2026, which would foreshadow what might be required in the longer-term future.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Let me understand that, Ms O’Connell. The plan as it is—as we have just been told, it’s a living document and a living plan and it could change—the 450 and the 38, that’s it; but it could change in 2026 when the review is done. Because it is a living plan, the plan could grow another arm and leg.  

Ms O’Connell:  Yes.  

Mr Fredericks:  I don’t think we can pre-empt that review.  

Senator ROBERTS:  People’s livelihoods are at stake, Mr Fredericks.  

Mr Fredericks:  I understand that fully. There is a review. It is in 2026. It will be very well conducted by the MDBA. I don’t think that, sitting here in 2024, we, as departmental officials, can really pre-empt that review.  

Senator ROBERTS:  I am thinking of farmers in southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia who are wondering whether or not to invest in their future and the future of their communities. Businesses in many rural communities have gone downhill, in large part due to the Water Act and the plan. These people want to know that they’ve got something more than two years. They just want to know: is this the end?  

Senator McAllister:  Can I make this point, Senator Roberts? The origin of the plan lay in a recognition across the country that we had overallocated the Murray-Darling Basin system. That had very significant consequences for basin communities. It had very significant consequences for the food and fibre producers in the Murray-Darling Basin, who depend on reliable access to water. It had consequences, of course, for the natural systems in the Murray-Darling Basin, which were under enormous pressure. It’s a while back now, but it really came to a head in the millennium drought. We saw some very severe impacts across the basin at that time. There was a recognition across the country, including within the basin, that we couldn’t go on in this way and that the overallocation needed to be addressed. That is the origin of the plan.  

It matters to farmers and food and fibre producers that these issues are tackled and addressed because there is an interrelationship between the access to water by communities, the access to water by farmers, the availability of water for environmental purposes and, increasingly, the recognition that cultural water matters to First Nations people as well.  

All of these things are interrelated and, at their heart, the success of all of those stakeholders, and the interests of all of those stakeholders, lies in having a healthy, working river that is being appropriately managed. Those are the underlying ideas that drive our government’s commitment to implementing the Basin Plan.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Minister, while we do argue about the science underpinning the Basin Plan, let’s set that aside. Modern civilisation cannot exist without a healthy environment. We get that. A healthy environment cannot be achieved without modern civilisation because it reduces the pressure on the environment. Landholders are the number one protectors of the environment—that means farmers. At the moment, farmers and small businesses in rural communities see a shifting of the goalposts repeatedly. That’s what’s bothering them. They get the point about the need to protect the environment. They’re tired of having the goalposts shifted on them. That’s why my question was: is this the end of it? So far, what we’ve got is: ‘No, it’s not. In 2026 we’ll have a review and see what happens.’ 

Senator McAllister:  The plan has been in place for a very long time, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Since 2007.  

Senator McAllister:  Our party has been very consistent in supporting the implementation of that plan. Our view is that the plan should be implemented. For much of that period, that was the stated position of the coalition parties as well. Unfortunately, in the final years of the last government—in fact, really across the period of the last government—the Liberal and National parties undermined and sabotaged the plan’s implementation.  

Senator Davey interjecting— 

Senator McAllister:  That has caused a very significant problem.  

Chair:  That is the minister’s view. She is entitled to answer the question as she sees fit.  

Senator Davey:  I dispute that. The terminology ‘sabotaged’ is absolutely— 

Senator McAllister:  Senator, I think you said— 

Chair:  The minister will finish her— 

Senator Davey:  We might have had a different perspective on how to implement the plan.  

Chair:  Senator Davey, the minister will finish her answer and then you will have a turn.  

Senator McAllister:  I think the core facts are before us. In nine years, that government delivered just two of the 450 gigalitres—two gigalitres, under the 450-gigalitre target— 

Senator Davey:  We were focused on the environment and a sustainable level— 

Chair:  Senator Davey! 

Senator McAllister:  which would have meant that the plan would have been completed at some time around the year 4000. Steps needed to be taken to get the plan on track. We are taking those steps. I think the government’s priorities in terms of implementation are very clear. As I’ve indicated a couple of times now, we’re engaged in consultation with the community about the practical ways that we’re going to take the next steps together. 

/1 Comment/by

Labor Proposes to Tax the Shirt off Your Back

,

During Question Time, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher twice failed to rule out adding a tax to clothing.

This tax will be passed on to you and I at the checkout, making clothing more expensive and adding to the cost of living. The excuse for this tax is to reduce climate change by reducing the amount of clothing being manufactured. The wealthy wont reduce their purchases for the sake of a tax, yet everyday Australians will have no choice.

This exchange shows the Albanese Government really is considering taxing the shirt on your back, so you buy fewer clothes. Welcome to life under a Labor/Greens/WEF government.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Gallagher. Last week the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tania Plibersek MP, stated that Australians were throwing out too many items of clothing, and manufacturers should sign up to a government-backed scheme called Seamless to recycle and not dump used clothes. Clothing can and should be recycled into new clothing and other fibre products. One Australian company operates an upcycling scheme that has dozens of manufacturers, trade linen suppliers, recycling companies and retailers as members, and has taken 100 tonnes of clothing out of landfill. Minister, why is the government reinventing the wheel, creating its own favoured solution and imposing that instead of working with the industry to help them upscale their existing solution?

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. From what I’ve seen from the minister and the work that she has been doing in space, she has been working with industry and relevant businesses on the development of this policy. That has been critical to the work that she has been doing and it has certainly been under way for some time. I know there was talk before there was a summit and there was talk of a voluntary code, but it is an important part of ensuring that we are protecting the environment from the amount of waste that is going into landfill—and a big contributor of that is clothing. I don’t know, maybe I have misunderstood your question, Senator Roberts, but while there are manufacturers and industries in place that are already doing this, this is about building on that and making it more across-the-board, particularly for those that aren’t doing that, to make sure we are lifting our game in relation to recycling, and preventing the huge amount of clothing material going into landfill. If there are manufacturers or businesses that you think are feeling out of the loop of that consultation I’m sure the Minister for the Environment and Water would be happy to reach out.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary question?

Senator ROBERTS: Councils do not currently include clothing on the list of things people can put into a yellow bin. Most suggest giving used clothes to charity shops, very little of which can be resold. Most of that ends up in landfill at the charity shop’s expense. Isn’t the first step here sorting out the system for recycling and processing, then working with councils and retailers to encourage recycling through yellow bins? Is your government putting the cart before the horse?

Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept that, Senator Roberts. Where we can, we do work with councils and we work with businesses—we’ll work with anybody who wants to help protect the environment and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. From my reading—and I was not here last week—of the work that Minister Plibersek was doing, it was about encouraging the voluntary cooperation or involvement of businesses in Seamless, in that program, to build it from there. So I would think, yes, you have to work with all of those people, including the councils that run the recycling facilities, whether it be the tips or whether it be what is called the Green Shed here. People donate to Vinnies. There are clothing bins. There are all of those options. Many of those are run by local government. But the Commonwealth government should provide a leadership role and provide that stewardship, where we can, and work together with everybody involved.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Plibersek threatened that if the industry did not accept the government’s superfluous Seamless then a 4 cent waste levy should be imposed on clothing manufacturers. This proposal will increase the cost of clothing at the checkouts. Minister, will you, right now, rule out taxing clothing? 

Senator GALLAGHER: Minister Plibersek has been working with the industry to reduce the amount of waste. Clothes are cheaper than they have ever been—this is part of the problem. Anyone with teenagers or anyone who goes on some of these websites knows that you can replace your whole wardrobe, very cost-efficiently, because of the nature of people’s buying habits and the ability to get clothes from overseas. We are seeing that the average Australian sends almost 10 kilos of clothing waste to landfill every year. So it is a big problem, and it’s a problem that we need to work across industry to fix. 

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance: I asked, ‘Will the minister now rule out taxing clothing?’ 

The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator GALLAGHER: I am explaining what the government is doing. You might want to take it somewhere else, which we have no plans to do. We are talking about what we are doing now with Seamless, which is: working with industry to reduce the amount of clothing going to landfill. And we will work with anybody who wants to work with us on that.

Following Question Time, I moved to take note of the Minister’s response to my questions.

When did it become appropriate for the government to decide how much clothing you own? Minister Tania Plibersek is repeating World Economic Forum rhetoric designed to widen the gulf between the haves and the have nots. It’s terrifying that Minister Plibersek should recycle WEF talking points to the Australian public.

The real failure however is that many people aren’t aware that clothes can be recycled. Councils and retail stores don’t offer recycling options, and although the fashion industry has started recycling facilities in Sydney and Melbourne, more is needed.

Instead of taxing clothing, how about working with the industry to expand capability and encourage the clothing industry to tag items for recycling instead of throwing them out. The government could do with ignoring the WEF and its CCP-style rules and instead think for itself on behalf of Australians not globalists. How about less stick and more common sense?

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the government’s proposed tax on clothing. 

We are told the proposed tax on clothing is to encourage recycling. The proposal from the Minister for the Environment and Water was floated over the weekend. This was not some random thought bubble. The World Economic Forum and its acolytes have been saying for years that everyday citizens are buying too much clothing. Minister Plibersek repeated those World Economic Forum talking points in the same press conference. This begs the questions: What’s the correct amount of clothing a person can own? Who decides how much clothing we each get to own? Is the intent to remove colour and style options so that a few approved uniforms are all we need? Didn’t China try that already? 

This proposal sits alongside the World Economic Forum policy that I spoke to last sitting, calling on people to wear clothing for a week and jeans for a month before washing them. It’s true that laundering clothing does wear it out. To get by with fewer items of clothing, one has to wash them less often. At least they thought this through. 

It’s terrifying that a minister of the Crown would repeat World Economic Forum talking points designed to ensure that everyday Australians have less. The failure here, though, is this: the reason we throw out so much clothing is that Australians don’t know clothing can be recycled. Councils don’t have clothing on the lists of things you can put in a yellow bin. Retailers don’t have recycling bins in stores, and they don’t attach a tag to a garment saying, ‘You can recycle the product in a yellow bin.’ The industry already has recycling facilities in Sydney and Melbourne, which is a good start. 

Here’s an idea: instead of taxing clothing to create a new recycling system, as the Labor Party is considering, how about working with the industry to expand capability and then encourage the public to recycle clothing instead of throwing it out? This government needs to use less stick and more commonsense. It needs to use less control and do more listening and consulting. 

Question agreed to. 

/9 Comments/by

Inquiry Into Wind and Solar Urgently Needed

,

During my recent visits to constituents across Queensland, there has been a consistent request for an inquiry into the wind and solar scam. Jobs are being destroyed and exported overseas where there’s cheaper energy. Cheaper and reliable energy means a more productive country. Australia is turning its back on what we have in our ground for expensive and unreliable technology that we are buying mostly from China. 

No wonder this Labor government is so unpopular. It is doing exactly what the globalists want and wrecking the Australian bush. Our coal production is up and it’s being burned by other nations. China uses 55% of the world’s coal and is approving new plants at the rate of two a week. Australia is sacrificing itself for global climate goals, which are being trashed by India, China and others who are free from the insanity of the solar and wind dog and pony show. 

Chris Bowen and his Ministry for Misery is shutting down agriculture and replacing it with the desecration of nation-killing, environment destroying ‘renewables’. There’s no data to back up this climate fraud. Solar and wind is not the cheapest energy at all. GenCost data is based on false data.

Companies are starting to wind back their commitments to Net Zero. Many people are waking up and seeing the truth and speaking out against the Net Zero scam. 

Some Senators are receiving funding from Climate200, which represents billionaires interested in “climate change” issues. These senators turn a blind eye to what’s happening in pursuit of Net Zero. This total disregard is leading to the destruction of forests and farming communities, as well as escalating energy prices, all of which amount to a troubling transfer of wealth to the already wealthy.  This needs to stop.

Transcript

This is not the first time the Senate has debated the need for an inquiry into the effect of industrial wind, industrial solar and transmission lines on rural and remote Australia. The reason is simple. As I travel through Queensland listening with my constituents, they let me know in very clear language that there must be an inquiry into this scam, into this destruction. 

I want to name and honour and express my appreciation for the people from Victoria through to New South Wales through to southern Queensland and central Queensland and north Queensland for standing up, in rural communities in particular but also, increasingly, city folks. I want to single out two names in particular: Katy McCallum and Jim Willmott. People in this protest movement know of them, and I thank them for their outstanding work. Katy has been a real dynamo, full of information. Thank you so much. 

Australia’s net zero energy transition is a complete disaster. These things are destroying Australian’s productive capacity, taking a coal powered generation capacity that offers cheap, reliable, affordable, accessible, secure, stable energy to industry and to homeowners and families and turning that into a catastrophe—an economic catastrophe, an unreliable catastrophe. Jobs are being destroyed and exported to China. In January, Alcoa announced the closure of the Kwinana aluminium smelter, with the loss of 850 staff—850 jobs!—and 250 contractors. The closure was caused in part by Australia losing its competitive advantage in power. And that’s extremely important. The cheaper and more reliable the energy, the more competitive and productive a country is, and the higher the standard of living and the higher the wealth for everyone. That has been the message of the last 170 years of history. And we are committing economic suicide. 

A report into Victoria’s renewable energy and storage targets, released and then withdrawn last month, stated the following: ‘Achieving net zero requires the construction of unprecedented’—there’s that word again—’amounts of renewable energy in Victoria, more than 15 times today’s installed renewable capacity, according to the current best estimates.’ It continues: ‘Analysis indicates that to meet net zero targets using onshore renewables could require up to 70 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural land to host wind and solar farms.’ Those are their words: 70 per cent. Well, good luck with that, because you’d be starving, watching the wind turbines not even turning and the solar panels cooking the earth. Finally, the truth is out there. 

No wonder this Labor government is buying back water and eliminating major infrastructure in regional and remote Australia—in short, making life tougher and tougher for the bush, and hollowing out the bush. No wonder approvals are being guided through for bug and lab-grown protein. These will be our food sources, once the net zero agenda is completed. If you don’t believe me, go and listen to the parasitic globalists. They’ve said exactly that. 

This Labor government has every intention of turning the bush into one giant industrial landscape of wind, solar, batteries, transmission lines and pumped storage. It’s anti human. The minister for misery, Mr Chris Bowen, is wrecking the bush. The minister for misery, Mr Chris Bowen, is wrecking Australia. The minister for misery, Mr Chris Bowen, is killing people’s lifestyles in this country and killing our futures. We’ve just enough land left over now to grow beautiful quality beef and agricultural products, for the billionaire parasites the Prime Minister is so fond of hobnobbing with. So they’ll shut down agriculture, except for that small quantity for the parasitic billionaires—produce that will, of course, be available to the nomenklatura: the class of bureaucrats, journalists, academics and politicians who promote these measures, with the understanding that they will never be restricted by them. This is the truth of the net zero agenda. 

Now, I travelled through Far North Queensland in January and visited the areas to be desecrated with wind turbines. I learned about the aquifers that run from the beautiful, amazing Atherton Tablelands—amazingly productive land—out to the Great Barrier Reef, taking water under the sea and then feeding it under the reef as far as 50 kilometres offshore. That’s a fact. These ancient aquifers will carry any pollutants—including naturally-occurring arsenic—out to our beautiful Great Barrier Reef. Pollutants are being disturbed by construction of these wind turbines. 

I saw the rock slides that occurred during the recent cyclones, which residents reported as being the worst they could remember. Climate hasn’t changed. That’s natural, up in North Queensland, because of the wet summers. These rock slides extended from the top of the mountains to the road at sea level. This is natural in North Queensland, with beautiful mountains and lots of rain. This devastation is in an area that is part of the same mountain range where wind turbines will be erected. So they’re going to loosen the mountain tops. If the government is not getting up there with seismologists and surveyors to see what caused these rock slides, then the outcome will be more devastation. 

There has been too much looking the other way or turning a blind eye, and too much wishful thinking, in the planning for net zero. There’s been too much blindness—people groping around in the dark, ignoring the data. This inquiry will be a chance to ask hard questions about the real environmental and financial cost to Australia and the real impact on regional and rural and remote Australia. 

I want to read from some notes. I want to honour and appreciate Steve Nowakowski. He was in bed with the Greens. He’s a dedicated conservationist, which made him wake up to the fact that the Greens are not conservationists; they’re just anti human. He had courage. He was a booth captain with the Greens during their election campaigns, very much pushing their agenda, but he had the courage to inquire, to ask questions, to change. He had the courage, once he woke up, to oppose, to get the data and tell the truth. Steve Nowakowski had the courage to speak out. 

There has never been any data from any government agency anywhere in the world, nor from any institute or university, that shows the underlying logical scientific points and empirical scientific evidence to justify this climate fraud. There has been no data for solar and wind. The CSIRO’s GenCost, as other senators in this parliament have attested, is a complete fraud. It is fraudulent. They’re basing their conclusions on false evidence, false data. They’ve fabricated it. They’ve omitted solid cost data. That’s because what they want to show is that the government’s policy of solar and wind is the cheapest. Solar and wind are not the cheapest; they’re by far the most expensive. First comes hydro, second comes coal, third comes nuclear, and then way, way behind come solar and wind. 

I’ll read some of the things that are happening because some people in the world are waking up. This is from an article by Chris Mitchell in the Australian yesterday: Some environment journalists are blind to what’s really happening globally in fossil fuel use and the renewable energy transition. This certainly seems to suit Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who is failing to meet his government’s commitments on the electricity network rollout and power price reductions. 

These were promised by the government, but so far prices have risen, and they will continue to rise. 

He goes on: On almost every energy issue, Bowen and his media cheer squad ignore setbacks in the northern hemisphere where coal and gas are being burned at record levels, the US is winding back EV mandates, two of Europe’s biggest carmakers, Volvo and Renault, are reducing EV investment and the EU looks likely to start to unravel its commitment to achieve net zero by 2050. 

Mercedes is cutting back. Toyota and Honda were never committed anyway, and now they’re openly talking about it. He continues: Thermal coal use globally reached an all-time record in 2023. Global coal exports topped one billion tonnes and coal-fired electricity generation between October 2022 and October 2023 was up—up, up, up—1 per cent to 8295 terawatt hours. Emissions from coal-fired power last year topped 7.85 billion tonnes of CO2, up 67 million tonnes. 

They’re up because they don’t see this problem, because they know the data. Mitchell continues: While coal use fell in Europe and North America, that was more than offset by coal burnt in Asia. Indonesia was the world’s biggest exporter of thermal coal last year— they’ve passed us; we used to be— at 505.4 million tonnes and Australia number two at 198 million tonnes— 

40 per cent of what Indonesia exported, and our production is up seven per cent. But we can’t burn it here. We can give our wonderful energy to other countries and let them burn it and make cheap energy. The article continues: Use of gas globally rose 0.5 per cent last year as China emerged from lockdowns. That growth is expected to increase to 3.5 per cent this year. 

… Hydroelectric generation and biofuels, which can count as renewable energy, exceeded wind and solar in the renewables ledger. 

So the renewables ledger is rubbish; it’s mostly hydro. Even so, renewables globally rose but wind and solar accounted for only 12 per cent of all power used. Further, he says: The Doomberg energy news letter that publishes on Substack went through the latest International Energy Agency coal numbers. It points out China now uses 55 per cent of the world’s coal— 

And we sell it to them. They now produce 4.5 billion tonnes and want to get to five billion tonnes. We produce 560 million tonnes, one-eighth or one-ninth what they produce. He says: … coal makes up 70 per cent of China’s CO2 emissions. 

Who cares, because CO2 emissions we don’t control as humans. The level of carbon dioxide is controlled by nature. I’ll continue with the article: Even the Guardian now acknowledges China is approving new coal power projects at the rate of two a week. 

Yet in much of the Australian media, China is regularly described as a green superpower. Sure, it exports wind and solar components made in China with coal-fired electricity! 

That sabotages our energy, because we have to subside the solar and wind. The article goes on: Writes Doomberg, China is “more than happy to profit from countries willing to sacrifice themselves at the Altar of the Church of Carbon and even happier to recycle those profits into securing coal at prices lower than they would otherwise be if so much international demand hadn’t been voluntarily removed from the market”. 

China is being helped because other countries are taking coal off the market, so China pays a lower price. The article goes on: India, the number three CO2 emitter, pledges to hit net zero in 2070 – “the functional equivalent of never”, Doomberg says. India has announced an extra 88GW of capacity by 2032— eight years away— up 63 per cent from the projections released in May. 

Solar and wind are basically just for show, and they’ve basically admitted that. They’re not going to commit suicide, because they’ve seen us liberate our people with hydrocarbon fuel—coal, oil and natural gas. The article goes on: The world has little chance of meeting net zero by 2050: figures released in December at COP28— the UN’s gabfest— in Dubai showed CO2 emissions up 1.1 per cent last year despite a fall of 419 million metric tonnes outside China and India. China’s emissions rose 458 million tonnes and India’s 233 million. Predictions EVs will conquer the motoring world are proving just as inaccurate as peak coal forecasts.  

That is, terribly inaccurate. The article goes on: Both Porsche and the EU are pushing for delays to Europe’s commitment to phase out internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. 

Porsche chief financial officer Lutz Meschke told Bloomberg last month he believed the EU’s 2035 deadline for stopping ICE manufacture could be delayed. Politico reported on January 18 that the manifesto of the European People’s Party, the continent’s largest conservative political force, wanted the unwinding of the 2035 ICE ban. 

They want it undone, reversed. The article goes on: Volvo, which has been telling the world— bragging to the world—it is moving to electric only, last month said it would no longer provide financial support to the loss-making Polestar electric vehicle maker and would look at selling its 48 per cent stake to Chinese parent company Geely. 

French giant Renault has “scrapped the separate listing of its EV unit Ampere”, according to London’s The Daily Telegraph on February 2. 

Toyota, which environmentalists last year were criticising for being a laggard on EVs, again looks to have made the right call on continuing to invest in hybrid technology. 

I want to point out that the German government, the EU and the UK government to some extent—largely, in the UK—have cut their net zero ambitions in half. Some have even called them off. 

In the time remaining, I just want to point out that people in this Senate receive money from Climate 200, which is funded by Simon Holmes a Court, who is making money off solar and wind subsidies. Teals people in the lower house and teals senator David Pocock get money from Climate 200. They’re getting money from parasitic billionaires to push the agenda for making these parasitic billionaires billions more in subsidies. That is a fact. Then they blindly turn away from looking at the devastation that solar and wind are causing. No wonder people in rural communities and right across Australia are tired of the higher prices for solar and wind, higher prices for electricity and the devastation on our forests and our farming communities. We need an inquiry. 

/6 Comments/by

Conversation with Maria Zeee of the Alex Jones Show – InfoWars

I joined Maria Zeee for an early morning chat to discuss what’s driving the ongoing de-industrialisation of western civilisation.

It’s not just about climate, it’s about control of society and we are seeing this in Australia now.

The Queensland Government reached into people’s homes and took control of people’s air conditioners to ‘protect’ the weakened grid, which is suffering under unreliable solar and wind.

/2 Comments/by