BOVAER is a chemical additive that has been approved in Australia for feeding ruminants, including cows.
Bovaer is a trade name. The active substance is 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), which is diluted in propylene glycol and adsorbed on silicic acid. The chemical suppresses methane production by 99% in laboratory trials, but only 45% in field trials, and 28% when used for 12 months. This suggests that either the animals develop resistance to the chemical, or the chemical degrades in storage.
3-NOP is not approved for use in organic beef or milk in Australia, so those wishing to avoid the chemical can purchase organic products.
Bovaer itself is harmful if it comes into contact with human skin, and the Product Safety Sheet requires the use of personal protective equipment.
The amount of Bovaer used in cow feeding is very small. If used as directed, the product does not affect the animal and does not appear in meat or milk fat. Additionally, the animal consumes 5% less feed for the same output.
However, food.gov.uk conducted testing at levels above the recommended dose and found that at (double) the dose, effects identified included decreased ovary size. At five times the dose, the chemical WAS found in milk fat. Further research at higher levels was prevented by the premature slaughter of the animal, which is a red flag to One Nation.
Long-term genotoxicity testing concluded there was evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats. However, the makers hired “experts” to contest the result. There has been no attempt to determine the happiness of the animals, i.e. does consuming this chemical cause them any discomfort?
The primary purpose of the product is to reduce methane emissions. However, ruminants have been part of the ecosystem since time began and bovine methane actually helps the environment.
There is no reason to add this chemical to stockfeed, regardless of its safety. This product is nothing more than a fundraiser for climate carpetbaggers to create a billion-dollar industry for themselves where none existed and none is needed.
For these reasons, One Nation opposes the use of Bovaer.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Bovaer.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=16751200Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-30 12:42:052025-01-30 12:42:09One Nation Opposes the Use of Bovaer to Reduce Methane Emissions
Dengue fever is a viral illness spread by the Aedes aegypti mosquito (known as the dengue mosquito in north Queensland). The dengue virus is not endemic in Australia, meaning the virus is not normally present in Australia.
Dengue fever outbreaks begin when someone is infected with dengue overseas and arrives with the virus in their blood. This is referred to as an imported case. When a local Aedes aegypti mosquito bites an infected person, it in turn becomes infected with the virus and can then transmit it to others through subsequent bites. These instances are known as locally acquired cases.
The dengue virus does not spread directly from person to person.
Catching different types of dengue, even years apart, increases the risk of developing severe dengue. Severe dengue causes bleeding and shock, and can be life-threatening. There have been deaths in Queensland from severe dengue. This is why a vaccine is problematic, because that relies on giving the subject the disease.
About Oxitec and Their Process
Oxitec’s genetically modified mosquitoes work by releasing sterile males into the wild to mate with females, which results in offspring that die in the larval stage. Oxitec’s mosquitoes are engineered with a self-limiting gene that produces a non-toxic protein that prevents their offspring from surviving to adulthood. The protein, called tTAV, disrupts the cell’s ability to function and prevents the insect from developing normally.
The gene can be switched off using amoxicillin, which allows the factory to breed the mosquitoes, then once in the wild, the amoxicillin wears off and the gene starts producing the protein again.
In short – it’s gene editing, hence the need for the application to the Office of the Gene Technology regulator.
“Launched today, Oxitec Australia is a collaboration between CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, and UK-based Oxitec Ltd, the leading developer of biological solutions to control pests.“
And look who is running the show – “Professor Brett Sutton, Director of Health & Biosecurity at CSIRO, said Oxitec Australia is now seeking partners to accelerate its activities and product development in Australia.”
When I said it was a template, this is confirmed in the CSIRO press release:
“This technology platform could also be used to develop solutions for a wide spectrum of pests that threaten livestock and crops and our food systems.”
Oxitec are running field trials on a fall armyworm with the same gene added, which is a moth not a mosquito. And it’s our money going into this so Estimates is fair game:
“Oxitec Australia is also developing an Aedes albopictus (Asian tiger mosquito) solution, with funding from CSIRO, to help prevent a major invasion risk to mainland Australia. “
Mosquito Performance in Brazil
Oxitec launched a year-long field trial in Indaiatuba, Brazil in 2018. The trial involved releasing Oxitec’s Friendly™ Aedes aegypti in four communities. The trial’s results included an average of 89% peak suppression in two communities treated with a low release rate of mosquitoes according to Oxitec. Brazil’s Dengue rate was low in 2018, and jumped up in 2019 and later. The locals are claiming a connection but there is no science around what that connection could be.
Gates Foundation however washed their hands of the Brazil Dengue escalation with this statement:
“A spokesperson at the Gates Foundation told AFP that the foundation ‘does not fund any of Oxitec’s work involving Aedes aegypti mosquito release in Brazil.’
NOT exactly a debunking of the controversy.
People are asking if the explosion in Dengue in Brazil the year after the trial was related, especially when the same thing happened after a similar trial for Zika. It is a question that should be addressed, although I do think it is not connected.
Florida 2021 – Nothing Went Wrong
Oxitec ran a controlled release in Florida in 2021. A kill rate of 90% was proven, with no known unintended consequences. HOWEVER, there was an increase in Dengue the following year and the same thing happened with the Zika test in Brazil. The reason this isn’t related is the genotype:
“We documented an unprecedented number of travel-associated and locally acquired DENV-3 cases in Florida during May 2022–April 2023; circulation of the DENV-3 genotype III was recently identified in the Americas. Our investigation illustrates that local transmission and spread in Florida was limited, despite multiple introductions from outside the country. Sequencing and phylogenetic analysis revealed that cases were from the same DENV-3 genotype III lineage and were highly related to one another and to cases identified in Puerto Rico, Arizona, and Brazil.”
So the outbreak was not spontaneous in the area of the trial, but was introduced from outside.
Dengue Vaccine and the Philippines Scandal
Sanofi Pasteur owns the Dengvaxia® vaccine – the first licensed dengue vaccine and available in more than 20 countries. It is registered with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia, but is not currently marketed here.
WIKIPEDIA: “The Philippine Department of Health began in 2016 a programme in three regions to vaccinate schoolchildren against dengue fever, using Dengvaxia supplied by Sanofi Pasteur. On 29 November 2017, Sanofi issued a caution stating that new analysis had shown that those vaccinated who had not previously been infected with dengue ran a greater risk of infection causing severe symptoms. On 1 December 2017, the Philippine DOH placed the programme on hold, pending review. Over 700,000 people had received at least one vaccination at that point.[11][12] Since the announcement by Sanofi, at least 62 children have died, allegedly after receiving a vaccination. The victims’ parents blamed the dengue vaccine for the deaths of their children.”
Most of the deaths were caused by internal bleeding in the heart, lungs and brain, which are symptoms of haemorrhagic dengue.
Is this an Attempt to Create a Disease Just to Sell the vaccine?
Comparison of death rates from the vaccinated and unvaccinated suggests the vaccine offers some benefit, but that is mostly based in areas and demographics where health services are poor. It is best answered by offering mobile health services in affected areas. This Australia can do, whereas maybe the Philippines can’t.
The vaccine is listed in Australia – but hasn’t been used. The Philippines incident was the last known use of the vaccine, and the victim’s court case is still underway. Given Sanofi’s admissions around the vaccine and WHO’s advisory that a serology test is needed before giving the vaccine to a person to ensure they haven’t had the disease before, I doubt this is a vaccine play.
The mRNA version of the vaccine was trialled and rejected in 2014 because it didn’t work. It’s not an attempt to feed work to Pfizer’s new mRNA factories in Australia. There are new vaccines coming through but they have the same problem – making the disease worse in people who have had it before.
Some Mosquitoes Replicate
4% of the mosquitoes in the Brazil test lived and replicated. No work appears to have been done on what happened to the offspring – were they normal or were they mutated and if so, what is the effect of that mutation?
Could a mutated progeny cause a mutation in the virus (Dengue, Zika, Yellow Fever, Malaria) which causes it to become more dangerous, infectious, etc. This is a major question to be answered – capturing and testing mosquitoes in the wild to look for mutations, and that work has not been done. It must be an element of the OGTR approval.
Mosquitoes have a life cycle of 7 – 10 days. Fall army worms (FAW) live 6 – 8 weeks, so they are present in the environment longer but not significantly so.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Bill-Gates.jpg?fit=892%2C446&ssl=1446892Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-29 12:09:422025-01-29 14:18:12Queensland Given the Green Light to Bill Gates-Backed Mosquito Trial
Australia desperately needs housing and population policies that prioritise Australians FIRST. Both the Liberal-Labor uni-party have been implementing massive immigration, opening the floodgates despite making Australians homeless.
Australia has reached a record 2.43 million temporary visa holders, excluding tourists, which translates to a need for up to a million extra houses.
During COVID, when our borders were closed, rental vacancies near universities increased, showing that fewer international students mean more homes for Australians. The truth is, some universities and private education/training providers are abusing the system, using student visas as a backdoor for work rights, and eventually staying in Australia permanently. Many on student visas work full-time illegally and send money back home, with remittances hitting a record $11 billion in 2023. The claim that international students are a major export is a lie, as most work to support themselves here.
Until housing and infrastructure catch up, immigration needs to be dropped to zero and we have to ban foreign ownership. You can only trust One Nation to put Australians first.
Transcript
Thank you to Senator Pocock for raising this issue. Australia desperately needs housing and population policies that work for Australians. The Labor government has no coherent or practical policies. Both chiefs of the Liberal-Labor unity party have been implementing massive immigration. It’s essentially: ‘Open the floodgates to arrivals, no matter how many Australians are made homeless.’ We need a policy that does the opposite and puts Australians first.
Australia just hit a record level of temporary visa holders. Excluding tourists and other short-stay visitors, temporary visa holders in the country now number 2.43 million people. This blows the previous record of 1.9 million out of the water. That’s up to a million extra houses needed for these people. And 680,000 of these are international students—another record. This is putting untold pressure on the housing crisis. When the borders were closed during COVID, nearly all suburbs close to universities experienced higher rental vacancy rates. That means that when international students couldn’t come into the country there were more homes available for Australians. Now, who would have thought?
The truth is that some universities and private vocational education and training providers are completely abusing the system. A student visa is more often seen as a backdoor way to get working rights in Australia and eventually staying here forever. Hundreds of thousands of people on temporary student visas end up illegally working full-time hours and sending the money back to their home country. Personal remittance flows out of Australia almost perfectly correlate with the number of student visa holders in the country. On the latest figures in 2023, the transfer of money out of Australia hit a record $11 billion—out of the country. We can only assume that it has increased since then.
A particular lie is being peddled in this debate. That lie is that international students are one of Australia’s largest exports, at $40 billion a year. That figure assumes an international student arrives here on day one with all their money for course fees, rent, food and transport bills, and other spending already saved in their bank account. In reality most students end up working here for the money to support themselves and sending the remainder back home. The claim that international students are one of our biggest exports is simply not true because it is does not align with reality. Until housing and infrastructure catch up, One Nation will drop net immigration to zero.
At the recent senate estimates in November, I spoke with Dr Antonio Di Dio, Director of Professional Review Services, asking why the current system was still biased against doctors. He denied this was the case, even though the agency maintains a 100% conviction rate of doctors in a system that does not allow merit appeals or the ability to challenge the facts used against a doctor.
Dr Di Dio conceded that the agency had not undergone a review, despite it being suggested many years ago during an inquiry. Senator Gallagher added that a review was unnecessary, asserting that the system was functioning well, despite evidence to the contrary.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you. Thank you for being here. Annual reports of the PSR, directed to the health minister, make no attempt whatsoever to disguise the fact that PSR operates in part as a debt recovery system from doctors of Medicare funds. Given that admissions have earlier been made before Senate estimates that committees are not chaired by a judge, that merit review on appeal is not allowed, and that no cross-examination of the committee’s case ever occurs, why is it not reasonable to conclude that PSR operates similarly to a robodebt scheme for doctors, with doctors who’ve come before it having as little meaningful defence as did robodebt’s victims?
Dr Di Dio: That’s certainly not my view. When a practitioner is referred to PSR, a small minority of them are referred to a PSR committee. Last year it was 12 out of 109 referrals. When a practitioner appears before a PSR committee, the committee process is one in which peers interview and discuss with the practitioner under review whether or not, in their view, inappropriate practice has occurred. At every stage of that committee process, numerous times per day, the committee may say, ‘We have found preliminary concerns with this matter and invite your response.’ In other words, the entire process is made up of taking into account the practitioner’s response, over and over again. Furthermore, the practitioner, of course, is invited to bring their legal representative. In terms of a merits review, there is no formal merits review process as that term is commonly known. However, there are opportunities during and after the committee process to respond to the committee’s findings. For example, at the end of a committee, despite having opportunities to respond verbally all through the process, the practitioner under review also is invited, either themselves or through their legal representative, to make final comments about anything that has come up during the committee process. Furthermore, after the committee process is completed, there is a draft report issued by the committee to the practitioner under review, inviting comment and submissions to that draft report. So those committee findings are still deemed preliminary findings, because they are still awaiting further response and information from the practitioner under review.
Senator ROBERTS: That sounds wonderful, but it does not discuss the fact that the PSR’s case cannot be scrutinised in terms of evidence. You omit that. Why do you repeatedly omit that? Every time we come to Senate estimates, you omit that. That’s fundamental to justice.
Dr Di Dio: The PSR process is one in which, in order to elicit whether or not inappropriate practice has occurred, people’s medical records are reviewed.
Senator ROBERTS: But your data is not open to scrutiny; your case is not open to scrutiny. The facts cannot be disputed—cannot even be challenged.
Mr Topperwien: There are no facts found until the end of the committee process. There are no findings of fact until after the committee process, after all of the evidence has come in. Yes, the committee receives billing data from Medicare, but that’s open to inquiry and investigation as to how accurate that is, and that comes up often in hearings as to whether that data is accurate. And it’s open, then, for the practitioner to put on evidence to counter that data. And that happens regularly at committee hearings. The hearing is an investigation. It isn’t a prosecution. So the committee is inquiring into the information that the committee has already received in the way of the billing data and gets the patient records to see how they match up to what’s been billed as to whether the doctor has fulfilled their obligation to keep adequate and contemporaneous notes of what they did, and to then investigate, ‘What was this practitioner’s conduct in connection with the provision of these services?’ It’s only after they’ve conducted a full inquiry investigation, asked lots of questions, and looked at all of the evidence, that they then may find facts, which may show that the doctor has engaged in inappropriate conduct.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back. I don’t want an answer to this just yet, but I want to say that there has never been a comprehensive review of the process, despite a 2011 Senate inquiry saying there should be a comprehensive review within 12 months. So let me continue. Many of the annual reports of the PSR director, to the health minister, contain the assertion that the goals for care planning must accord with the acronym SMART, specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-based—notwithstanding that no explicit allusion to specific SMART goals appears in the care planning MBS descriptor. Given that, essentially, all doctors who appear before PSR committees who do care plans are found guilty, and given that merit review of the committee’s case is never allowed, how can the committee’s finding of all doctors’ care plans as being unacceptable be valid?
Mr Topperwien: The committee examines random samples, usually, of the practitioner’s care plans. The practitioners who are examining those are practitioners who themselves do care plans. They are experts in what the general body of their specialty or profession do in their practice. And the reality is the law requires adequate records to be kept, and care plans that are meaningful. And, quite often, the sorts of care plans that committees see are blank templates. There’s nothing in them other than the patient’s name with goals that are totally meaningless. And so those sorts of care plans are ones on which they will find, ‘This is not a care plan that’s adequate and of any use to this patient. It is not a clinically relevant service that’s been provided.’
Dr Di Dio: Senator, if it helps, I do care plans every couple of weeks in my practice. I could take you through what one should like. But I think what you really want to know is: this is a peer review scheme, and so what the people on committees determine is what the general body of peers would be considering is appropriate or not.
Senator ROBERTS: This is an apparent peer review scheme, but it’s not. You claimed in the past that it is peer reviewed, and we’ve given examples where it’s not. Your predecessor, I think, offered to have a conversation with me—on the basis that it was not to discuss a specific doctor’s case; he made that clear. I accepted that offer straightaway, and I said, ‘That’s no problem at all.’ Soon after, he left. So we’ve never had that. Would you be willing to give us a briefing and have an exchange on that?
Dr Di Dio: I think you’ll find that the person who had that conversation with you was me, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: No, it wasn’t.
Dr Di Dio: Right. Well, Senator, I can further discuss—
Senator ROBERTS: Are you willing to have a meeting with us and give us a briefing?
Dr Di Dio: Senator, in order for me to do that, I need to get the appropriate permissions from my own minister, but, should that be the case, I would be very pleased to discuss with you or anybody else how the PSR system works—on the condition, of course, that it does not discuss any particular case or any particular practitioner. I can refer to some correspondence that I’ve had with you about this in the past, if you wish.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Dr Di Dio: We most recently corresponded with you on 21 March of this year and confirmed that we’d offered to meet with you in the context of providing general information about the PSR scheme and would happily provide that general information, and additionally on any questions you may have on procedural fairness. We said the discussion would not be able to include any specific matter or case before us and that I was not able to meet with any other person being reviewed or their legal representative or anyone else.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that still apply?
Dr Di Dio: Well, yes, because—
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Okay, let’s accept it, and we’ll set up a date.
Dr Di Dio: Well, nice to hear back from you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Many doctors, and all the medical defence organisations, complain emphatically that committees routinely make up rules in passing their judgement. Why is this not solid evidence of dysfunction, injustice and systemic injustice?
Dr Di Dio: I meet regularly with the medical defence organisations, most recently less than two weeks ago, and I present regularly to thousands of doctors in toto, various colleges and representative groups. That is not the impression that I get, talking to hundreds of doctors around the country. We attempt to do what we exist to do, which is to protect the Commonwealth from paying from inappropriate health care and to protect citizens from potential harms from inappropriate health care through a process that we consider to be as fair as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: And we applaud that. We just want procedural fairness and justice. Minister, when will this government review this broken system? It’s got to be changed.
Senator Gallagher: Well, I don’t accept that it is broken, Senator Roberts. That’s your assertion. The department provides advice to the minister about the operations of all parts of the health portfolio, and we are very confident in the processes and the leadership that’s being provided through the Professional Services Review system.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no review since the 2011 Senate inquiry saying there should be a comprehensive review within 12 months—no review. Clearly, it was a problem back then.
Ms Shakespeare: Senator, there have been reviews of aspects of the PSR scheme on several occasions since then. I am happy to—
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have, on notice, those reviews and the dates, please, and the topics and the scope?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/3gQ2vzRnzRs/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-23 17:44:002025-01-23 17:46:22Doctors Versus The System
Coal-fired power stations and nuclear power stations each have about 40 hectares of footprint, with a very narrow target transmission lines straight to the cities. In contrast, solar and wind installations are scattered and located away from the main cities, taking up enormous amounts of space. Their energy density is very low, requiring a vast amount of land to produce the same power, and they aren’t on consistently. This increases transmission costs and the amount of land that regions must devote to solar, wind, and now batteries, causing significant angst.
Around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar and wind has also increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. For example, look at Germany.
A surface coalmine must pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and if it is rehabilitated properly to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. However, there is no such bond for solar and wind companies to set aside funds for decommissioning their complexes at the end of their life. This needs to change!
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Your predecessor said, ‘Australia’s random renewable energy push needs to be overhauled and a nationwide stocktake is required to determine what should be built and where it should go.’ Are you committed to that overall overhaul?
Mr Sheldon: That is an observation or recommendation made by Mr Dyer, and I think that’s been built into the review that Mr Duggan has just been talking about. So all those action plans and so on are designed to ensure—
Senator ROBERTS: When’s that coming out? I’m sorry, I missed it.
Mr Duggan: The action plan has been agreed by the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council, so that’s now a public document. So we’re in the process now of implementing. The full response to the review was published on 19 July.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So that’s been included in their recommendations?
Mr Duggan: Yes, that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer also said, ‘The sort of granular planning required for a once in a generation transformation to secure the nation’s energy supply still had not happened.’ Is that now in the report as well— granular planning?
Mr Duggan: Yes, this was a recommendation to governments. As you would know, a lot of the detail, the specific planning around land use and specific locations of related transmission, sits with the state governments and involves a very big input from the local governments. So a lot of the argumentation around that recommendation was to point to some of the best practice that already exists and to encourage that to be taken up by the other states and territories.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s a lot of pain in the regions now, because they’re bearing the brunt of solar and wind disturbances.
Mr Duggan: What the report highlighted was that, certainly where best practice is not happening, there was an opportunity to improve the way projects are being delivered to the betterment of communities. That’s absolutely correct.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems like it’s hell for leather, just do whatever you want. And there’s a lot of cash flying around, which is inducing councils to bypass some of their own ordinances, as we understand it.
Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, the government inherited the last government’s framework and commissioned Mr Dyer to do this report because it’s in the interests of rural and regional communities and of an effective rollout of generation and transmission capability that we improve the governance and consultation processes and all of the things that are included in Mr Dyer’s report. That’s what’s motivated the government to commission this report. On those nine recommendations, I think Mr Duggan said three of them are directed towards the Commonwealth, because there are multiple participants in this process, but they have, essentially, all been adopted. It’s our job now to operationalise that effectively in a way that addresses, I think, many of the issues that you raise.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that, Minister. Are you aware that a coal-fired power station and a nuclear power station have about 40 hectares of footprint, and that’s it, and a very narrow target transmission corridor straight to the main users, which are the cities and the provincial cities? Solar and wind are scattered and away from the main cities and they take up enormous room. Their energy density is very low, which means that you need an enormous amount of land to produce the same power. And even then you can’t produce it regularly. So that increases transmission costs, and the amount of land the regions are devoting to solar, wind and transmission, and also now to batteries. It’s causing a lot of angst. Are you aware of that?
Senator Ayres: I’m certainly aware, on one hand, that, with the processes for approval and consultation with these projects, we were operating with the last government’s processes, and we are working to improve those. I’m also aware that you’re trying to make a broader point, I guess, about the merit or otherwise of the approach that is being taken by the government and the states and Commonwealth in terms of building an energy system for the future. I appreciate that you’re not one of the coalition MPs here, but I think it’s hard to make an argument about community consultation on one hand, and then do a press release that says: ‘We’re going to turn up with seven nuclear reactors in your neighbourhood, whether you like it or not. We’re not going to tell you how much they cost, or how many of them we’re going to build—but, Muswellbrook, here you go, whether you like it or not, a nuclear reactor’—
Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. A coal-fired power station would be fine—
Senator Ayres: That will be very expensive. What we know, and I think the evidence that you’ve heard today shows—and I understand you don’t agree with it; I think you’ve demonstrated over time that you are impervious to the facts and evidence that are provided by the agencies—
Senator ROBERTS: I do the contrary, Minister. I love evidence.
Senator Ayres: That’s your right, I understand that. But the shift to the cheapest form of energy is what the government is interested in here. Claims are made—some of them very wild claims, and some of them somewhere between misinformation and disinformation—about the scale of land that is required for these projects. I understand that people make those claims and some people retweet them and repost them—pretty irresponsible in my view. But we have commissioned the Dyer report for a reason; that is, to improve the processes. The minister believes, and the government believes, that adopting those, together with the appointment of Mr Mahar and other steps that the government is undertaking, will improve the effectiveness of the consultation process as we get on with one of the most important nation building things that government can do, and that is to deliver the lowest cost, most reliable energy system as we upgrade our energy system so that we can have manufacturing jobs and low cost, reliable, renewable energy and storage for households and business into the future. It’s a decades-long pathway and we’re determined to do it in the most efficient way possible for the Australian people.
Senator ROBERTS: There are two things I would remind you of, Minister. One is that the energy density drives the cost, and physics does not change the very low energy density of solar and wind, whereas coal and especially nuclear are very high energy density. The second thing is that, everywhere around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar wind, has increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. Have a look at Germany. Something that Mr Dyer was very passionate about was rehabilitation bonds, so that these wind and solar companies have put money away for decommissioning the complexes at the end of life. A surface coalmine has to pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and then, at the end of the life of the mine, if it’s rehabilitated properly, to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. There is no bond for solar and wind. What work have you done on putting reforms to government that would ensure there is money put away to clean up the environment, not just leave a toxic wasteland? Specifically, what have you done with the government?
Mr Sheldon: Can I just clarify that question? Is it: what work has the AEIC done to raise that issue with government?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Sheldon: I think Mr Dyer raised that. It was in his annual report in 2022 that he raised this issue about performance bonds in relation to wind farms in particular.
Senator ROBERTS: And what work has been done in following up?
Mr Sheldon: It’s certainly one of those issues that does get raised with us. It’s not in the top 10 or so issues that are raised with us in the complaints that we receive. We’re like a small ombudsman. We receive complaints. It’s an issue that does get raised. During the time that I’ve been in the role, from 2 April this year, it has been raised a few times, but it’s certainly not the top issue. In terms of what is happening, I think since 2022, when Mr Dyer raised the issue, what I’ve observed in the time that I’ve been in the role is that, in different jurisdictions, there’s certainly work done to increase transparency. One of our roles, I guess, in the AEIC is to promote more transparency around these projects.
Senator ROBERTS: What, specifically, have you done?
Mr Sheldon: It’s not our role to implement policy. We’ve identified issues and we certainly monitor them. New South Wales, for example, has recently worked on its renewable energy plan, which includes standard clauses and so on around the landholders in relation to this sort of issue. We’re monitoring that, but we don’t have responsibility for implementing it, as a complaint handling body. If we identify good examples, we’ll identify them as part of our role.
Senator ROBERTS: So what are you doing, specifically, to make sure that the bonds come into place?
Mr Sheldon: We don’t have a role to implement putting that in place. It’s certainly something we can raise as an issue. We have a range of mechanisms to do that. One of them is the annual report, which, obviously, comes out every year, on a calendar year basis. And part of what’s always been appended to that annual report is a series of observations that have really been built on the observations of the commissioner over many years—which is where the observation was made in 2022. That’s a place where we can raise that with officials that do have policy responsibility for these sorts of matters. That’s generally how we do it. We also have a website where we would raise things. We have reporting obligations to the minister. So, if we identify an issue, we obviously include that in our observations or reports.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I ask if you have much more to go? We’re running terribly behind.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to make a comment to the minister. Minister, this is a comment, but there’s no reflection on the people at the table with you right now, because they’re interim—well, you’re not in interim, but Mr Dyer was a thorough professional—
Senator Ayres: We’re all interim in one sense or another, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer was a thorough professional, who did his job extremely well. We happily endorsed him in Senate estimates. He was effectively an ombudsman, and a very good one.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/QF7b9AHNXWQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-23 16:38:292025-01-23 17:43:27Renewable Energy: Land Use and Cost Concerns
Peter Dutton has grabbed headlines for calling banks woke for denying customers.
We’re glad he’s picking up on something we’ve been raising for five years.
It’s time to protect Australians from greedy, woke bankers – yet history shows that neither of the major political parties will take effective action. You can trust that One Nation will!
I congratulate the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for at last taking the many complaints from underpaid coal miners seriously and treating them professionally. It’s only taken me five and a half years of persistent questioning to reach this point.
I was informed that preliminary results of the FWO’s investigation would be available around mid-2025. The six-year time limit that applies for enforcement under Section 544 of the Fair Work Act does not prevent investigations from extending beyond that period.
Determining the legality of Enterprise Agreements (EAs) is outside the scope of the FWO. If the Fair Work Commission (FWC) approved an EA, the FWO would consider it legal until a court rules otherwise.
The Senate passed my amendment to a recent Labor bill. That amendment requires the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to investigate this wage theft. Minister Watt agreed to provide me with updates and mentioned that the investigation might take up to 18 months to complete. We will persist in holding the Minister accountable in increasingly detailed ways as to progress in his investigation.
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 recently submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman -. i.e. a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. I want to congratulate and thank the Fair Work Ombudsman for responding to the Independent Workers Union of Australia request for underpayment assessment on behalf of IWUA casual miner members. I hear that the Fair Work Ombudsman is treating these requests with seriousness and professionalism and that you’ve set up a specific process for handling the claims. Given that the underpayment claims involve detailed investigation of documents relating to each miners’ annual income, their pay rates and so on, going back as far as 2013, I appreciate that the investigations may take some time. Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have any idea of the timelines involved? I’m not urging or wanting a fast outcome. Rather than a rushed job, I’d prefer a thorough high-quality investigation.
Ms Booth: Thank you for the question and the compliment. I’ll ask Mr Campbell to commence, but Mr Ronson has direct knowledge of that investigation, I believe.
Mr Campbell: I don’t know that we’ve got a timeframe at this point, but I’ll ask Mr Ronson to assist with an answer, given his immersion in the subject.
Mr Ronson: We’ve put together an overarching project plan in response to the requests to investigate the sector. In terms of preliminary findings—this is a guide, not so much necessarily for each request for assistance or each employee—we’re looking at preliminary findings by at least the middle of next year. The challenges we face, of course, as we go back to 2013, are those records, available witnesses and so forth.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; that’s good. When you said ‘next year’, I suddenly realised we’re nearly at the end of the year. I understand that the Fair Work Ombudsman’s investigation is subject to a six-year time limitation. Can you advise of the specific legislation, regulation or policy that creates that six-year time limitation?
Mr Ronson: That’s section 544 of the Fair Work Act. But there’s an important distinction to make, and this is one that we’ve put into our plan. That provision relates to enforceability. If I can just take you back—if someone puts in, as we’ve received, claims that go back to 2013, that does not prohibit us from investigating back to that period. However, if we were to find underpayment and request an employer or previous employer to compensate the employee for their underpayment, we would be restricted or limited by the impact of section 544. What that really means is: say we had to take someone to court. It would mean that at the time we file proceedings—I’m happy for chief counsel to help me here—we’d only be able to enforce an underpayment that goes back six years.
Senator ROBERTS: To 2018. Thank you; that’s pretty clear.
Mr Ronson: That doesn’t preclude us investigating historic underpayment.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s even more encouraging. Thank you so much. My next question is: is the Fair Work Ombudsman able to investigate back beyond—yes, you’ve said that. The One Nation report detailed coalminers’ wage theft and detailed the way casual coalminers’ underpayments have been justified by the people involved. The report identified what was called legal trickery that argued that, because the black coalmining industry award does not allow for casuals, a comparison to what would ordinarily be a casual rate under the award could be ignored in assessing the claimed underpayments of the national Independent Workers Union of Australia member coalminers. What is the approach of the Fair Work Ombudsman to this legal argument that claims to justify underpayments? What bearing does or would this argument have on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s investigations?
Mr Ronson: In terms of the requests for assistance that have come from workers who are being assisted by the Independent Workers Union of Australia, their argument is that the enterprise agreements are unlawful. There are various reasons they have put forward, probably in line with the report you just held. The question of whether those agreements are unlawful is outside our scope. The chief counsel, I think, on previous occasions gave evidence to this committee as to why we don’t go to second question. Nor can we guess the enterprise agreement approval process. What is in scope—what is in jurisdiction for us—is whether there was any coercion or any breach of general protections in the making of the agreement. As to the foundation or the status of the enterprise agreement, if it’s been approved by the Fair Work Commission, we take it as approved. There are a whole range of questions that flow from that, but that’s it in summary.
Senator ROBERTS: So, it’s not necessarily compliant with the law just because the Fair Work Commission approves it, but it has been approved.
Ms Volzke: Senator Roberts, I think we’ve traversed these issues before. It’s the Fair Work Commission that approves agreements, and it’s our job to apply the law to any particular case. As Mr Ronson said, that is exactly what we’re going to do with all of those requests for assistance that have been made. Certainly, there have been issues of legal complexity which still haven’t been authoritatively determined: what actually is the effect of the black coalmining award not providing for casual employment in operational roles. Certainly, there’s been some commentary around that, but it hasn’t been formally determined.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In undertaking the investigations, will the Fair Work Ombudsman report to the Senate on the progress of the investigations, findings and follow-up, obviously within the bounds of required confidentiality in relation to each miner?
Mr Ronson: We’re very happy to, at these appearances, provide updates, if you like, without jeopardising the integrity of any particular investigations. So it’d be at a fairly high level, but we’re more than happy to provide updates.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have questions to Minister Watt. Minister, when will you start your investigation that the Senate ordered on 16 May by passing my successful second reading amendment to the government’s recent so-called closing-the-loopholes Fair Work Amendment Bill?
Senator Watt: I would have to go back and take a look at that, Senator Roberts. I must admit I—
Senator ROBERTS: It was at the time Minister Burke was in the chair.
Senator Watt: Okay, that’s probably why I’m not familiar with it. Let me take that on notice and come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m surprised that you’re not aware of it. No-one in the handover made you aware of it?
Senator Watt: I don’t remember anything like that in the terms you’ve described, but Ms Volzke might know.
Ms Volzke: Yes, certainly. Minister Watt wrote to us—I think it was in August, so a couple of months ago— in relation to tasking us to effectively look at investigations of underpayments in black coal mining.
Senator Watt: Yes, I do remember that now. Sorry, I forgot.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are interested in workers?
Senator Watt: I think my record shows I am pretty interested in workers, including coalmining workers, Senator Roberts. I sign a lot of letters, but I do remember that one now.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I can understand. What’s your planned format, in terms of reference and scope, for the investigation?
Senator Watt: That’s probably a question for the—
Mr Ronson: That’s what I’m working on, and that’s where we’re developing what we’re calling an overarching project plan. What we’ve got at the moment is around 20 workers who have already approached the Fair Work Ombudsman, and obviously each of those persons will be very helpful to our investigation, because we’ll be able to talk to them about the sector. I can just give you a couple of key features of the project plan. One is to map out and identify who are the key players, the key influences. Senator, you’re on the record, for example, as saying that there are five labour hire entities of significance that you claim warrant attention.
Senator ROBERTS: We think there are more, but we’ve only investigated five.
Mr Ronson: Yes. Labour hire entities will obviously be a sharp focus for this plan.
Senator ROBERTS: Good.
Mr Ronson: Just in the nature of the industry, there are tensions, which we’ve already talked about before, between entitlements that are owed under the award and those under the enterprise agreement, so that’s in scope. We’ll also be working and talking with other regulators—for example, the coal long service leave board—where there are entities of mutual interest. We might be able to collaborate with that agency to enhance our capability and capacity.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s broad, and—
Mr Ronson: Yes. There’s an overarching plan that will take us around the next 18 months to deliver, but within that we’ve already set up, for example, a dedicated email address for anyone in the sector to approach us. We’re in communications with the Independent Workers Union. They’ve already started using the dedicated email address. We’re active and open for business now, but there’ll be other initiatives and steps we take to enhance awareness of this investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: I might come up with some more questions, but I’ll put them on notice. You’ve told us it will be about 18 months?
Mr Ronson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, I refer to the letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia to the CFMEU administrator in relation to the Independent Workers Union of Australia’s application to the Fair Work Ombudsman for investigation—you and I were copied, as was Senator Cash—and the activities of the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to those underpayments. The IWUA sent you a copy. Have you made yourself, or do you intend to make yourself, cognisant of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s reviews of the underpayment assessments.
Senator Watt: Certainly I will no doubt be informed of the result of the work that the Fair Work Ombudsman is doing.
Senator ROBERTS: Before the 18 months for the overarching inquiry.
Senator Watt: I’m sure the ombudsman will keep me informed of that, as they do on a range of matters.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Have you made yourself, or do you intend to make yourself, cognisant of the One Nation report on this matter, specifically with a view to understanding the CFMEU’s role?
Senator Watt: I haven’t read the report, but you and I have talked about this many, many times at estimates, so I think I’ve got a bit of an understanding of the issues that you’ve raised.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve always been sceptical, but I encourage you to read the report.
Senator Watt: I’m sure it’s top-quality work, coming from you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, we commissioned it. I didn’t do it.
Senator Watt: Oh, okay.
Senator ROBERTS: I just informed some parts of it.
Senator Watt: I’m sure it would have been better if you’d written it yourself.
Senator ROBERTS:Have you investigated, or do you intend to investigate, the historical activities of the CFMEU where the CFMEU either negotiated, oversaw, were aware of, approved, endorsed or were a party to the agreements that are in discussion?
Senator Watt: My recollection is that those complaints that have been made have been investigated previously and, in some cases, are still being looked at. I’ve got full confidence in the authorities that are looking into those matters.
Senator ROBERTS: They haven’t been investigated yet.
Senator Watt: I think there has been some work looking at the veracity of those allegations. From what I’ve seen, there’s a different view compared to what has been put forward by that group of people. I respect the fact that you believe in and support the people who’ve made those complaints. I guess there’s a different point of view.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I have copies of that advice, please.
Senator Watt: I’ll get you anything that we’ve got, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you investigated or do you intend to investigate whether officers of the CFMEU or persons associated with the CFMEU engaged in any collusive activity such as conspiring with other people or entities to enable the underpayment of casual labour hire coalminers?
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, we should make the point that when you’re talking about the CFMEU you’re talking about what was the mining and energy division of the CFMEU. It’s now a separate union.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s the Mining and Energy Union now.
Senator Watt: There’s been a lot of discussion about the CFMEU today, and we’re not talking about the construction division. Again, my understanding is that a number of those matters have been looked at already— or, at least, you’ve had them referred to authorities. I’d be relying on the work that’s already happened there.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, give us copies of what you’re relying on.
Senator Watt: Sure. I thought, Senator Roberts, that you had actually referred some of these matters to authorities for investigation already. If I’m right in thinking that, I’ll come back to you on what’s happened. If I’m not right about that, then I’d encourage you to refer those, whether it be to the Fair Work Ombudsman or to other groups.
Senator ROBERTS: I think the correct avenue is now being followed by the miners.
Senator Watt: Exactly, so we’ll wait and see the outcome of that.
Senator ROBERTS: If you have anything on what the department has done with it, I’d like to see that.
Senator Watt: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Given the alleged extensive criminal activity within the CFMEU—I know that was a different division, but the divisions do talk—have you investigated or do you intend to investigate whether any criminal activities, such as bribes or other things, could have resulted from or were a feature of the CFMEU’s involvement with the enterprise agreements, resulting in a shameful massive underpayment of casual coalminers? It seems it could not have happened without this.
Senator Watt: I don’t think anyone has ever produced any evidence of bribes or corruption involving the Mining and Energy Union or, previously, the mining division of the CFMEU. If you’ve got evidence of that, then I would strongly encourage you to refer that to the police for investigation, but I’m not aware of any evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: I believe that two miners that I accompanied, along with a barrister in my office, gave evidence to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and to the former minister’s staff—Minister Burke.
Senator Watt: Okay. I’ll take a look at what happened with that. As I say, if you’ve got evidence of someone taking a bribe or engaging in corrupt activity, then I’d strongly encourage you to take that to the police. They’re the authority who can lay charges.
Senator ROBERTS: Do they involve the Fair Work Ombudsman as well? They’d be interested in the motive, wouldn’t they?
Senator Watt: I think what would typically happen, if you’re talking about bribery, corruption or criminal offences—if they came to the attention of the Fair Work Ombudsman, the ombudsman would refer them to the relevant police. The Fair Work Ombudsman has responsibility for enforcing workplace laws, so offences against the Fair Work Act, but criminal offences, whether it be bribery or any other criminal offence, are a police matter.
Senator ROBERTS: To remind you, Minister Watt, this is Australia’s largest wage theft case. It’s outside the legislation that’s been passed since you came to office, and it’s not due to a loophole. Fixing the wage theft and preventing recurrence simply require compliance with the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. Did the government introduce the so-called closing loopholes bill to hide and bury Australia’s largest wage theft case?
Senator Watt: No.
Senator ROBERTS: There were no loopholes that enabled this. It was just straight-out noncompliance with the award.
Senator Watt: No, that’s not why we introduced the law.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Senator Watt: We introduced the closing loopholes laws to, among other things, fix the labour hire rort that was being used by some employers.
Senator ROBERTS: This is the rort, Minister Watt.
Senator Watt: What I’m saying is that the purpose of our introducing the legislation was, among other things, same job, same pay. As I’ve pointed out to you before, Senator Roberts, you didn’t support that law.
Senator ROBERTS: Because there was no loophole. This is the cause of the underpayment. This is the cause of Australia’s largest wage theft case.
Senator Watt: If you didn’t think there was a loophole with coalmining labour hire workers getting underpaid, then I don’t agree with you. I think that was a massive loophole that was being exploited.
Senator ROBERTS: It was just noncompliance with the award. Given the extreme wealth of the CFMEU, have you or do you intend to investigate and consider whether you have, at minimum, a moral obligation to cause the CFMEU to financially contribute to compensation to affected coalminers who have been underpaid? Can you do that?
Senator Watt: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can the CFMEU administrator do that?
Senator Watt: No, because—I wouldn’t think so, because the CFMEU administrator is responsible for the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU not the Mining and Energy Union, which is a standalone union these days.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you legislate to force those responsible for Australia’s largest wage theft case to pay the miners what they’re owed, if the findings show that?
Senator Watt: I guess, theoretically, governments can legislate on anything, as long as they’ve got a constitutional basis for that legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased to hear that.
Senator Watt: You could bring in a private senator’s bill. I probably shouldn’t have suggested that, should I?
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister Watt. Thank you, Chair.
Senator Watt: Can I say this really quickly. Senator Roberts, we’ve had a bit of a joke as we’ve gone along, but we take any report about wage theft seriously. All I can do is keep encouraging people like yourself, if you’ve got evidence of things—there are bodies whose role it is to investigate these things, and I’d encourage you to take them forward.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. The Independent Workers Union of Australia is showing its mettle.
Senator Watt: They can make complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
I raised concerns about the use of smart meters, highlighting that they are being used by some companies to gouge customers without informed consent. Customers are often switched to punitive plans and charged excessively based on their peak usage, even if it occurs infrequently.
Ms. Savage clarified the distinction between network and retail tariffs and explained that the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) is proposing new rules to protect consumers. These rules would require customers to opt into time-of-use tariffs and provide a three-year period during which they cannot be automatically switched to such tariffs.
I asked what were the tangible benefits of smart meters for consumers and was told smart meters help manage peak demand and reduce the need for network investment, ultimately benefiting consumers by keeping bills down. That seems to be a hollow promise given power bills have only gone up for many people who have had smart meters installed.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. We’ve discussed at length—I think it was with you, Ms Savage—smart meters. You’ve regularly touted that they are a good thing, and you’ve spoken about the Australian Energy Regulator’s need to have them rolled out as widely as possible as quickly as possible.
Ms Savage: That’s not us. That would be the Australian Energy Market Commission who’s talked about that.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s actually happening is that smart meters are being used to gouge customers. Many companies are not getting informed consent from consumers before changing customers over to incredibly punitive plans. Then those smart meters are being used to pinpoint the exact time someone is using their maximum amount of power, and the companies are charging the customer as if they’re doing that the entire period. What we’ve heard of is, for example, a family might be away on holiday for a couple of weeks. They come back near the end of the month, and they throw everything in the dryer and the washing machine. Their demand goes way up, and they’re charged at that rate for the whole month. That’s clearly gouging them. Are there no protections for the consumer who wants to have their smart meter removed, and what are you doing to crack down on those predatory power companies?
Ms Savage: Thank you for the question. I think there’s just a distinction I’d like to make between a network tariff and a retail tariff. The electricity rules require network tariffs to become increasingly cost reflective, but a retailer’s job is to manage the risk on behalf of customers. As you can imagine, the price of power in the wholesale market fluctuates every day between minus $1,000 and $17,000.
Senator ROBERTS: It does these days, yes.
Ms Savage: It always has, actually. The cap has been different, but it’s always been highly volatile in the NEM. A retailer’s job is to package up a product for a customer that manages that risk for them. Networks have a set of cost-reflective tariffs that they show to retailers as well because of the way in which the cost of a network is really about the maximum use of the network. If all of us in this room decided to turn everything on at exactly the same time, the network has to be built big enough to accommodate that. I’m sure you can appreciate that. What the network is doing is giving to the retailer a signal about when they’ve got more or less capacity available in their network, and then retailers package up that network signal and that wholesale signal and give it to a retailer. The Australian Energy Market Commission has recognised that, with the rollout of smart meters, more and more customers are being put on to tariffs that they may not understand, the sort of tariff you just described, so they’ve actually got a draft report out at the moment which is suggesting that there should be a longer period of time for customers. Three years I think is what they’ve proposed, and Mr Duggan might want to talk a little bit more about this, given it’s not my agency, but they’re giving customers a three-year window where retailers can’t put them on to a time-of-use tariff. Even if they get a smart meter, they couldn’t go automatically on to one of those time-of-use tariffs. Did you want to add to that?
Mr Duggan: Just two additional things. It must be an opt in. Under what’s being proposed by the AEMC, you must opt into a time-of-use tariff, not be forced on a time-of-use tariff. The other element is, if you choose not to opt in, then you continue to face the flat tariff you would’ve before—building in additional consumer protections.
Ms Savage: For the three years.
Mr Duggan: For the three years.
Senator ROBERTS: What protections are available in the National Electricity Rules for consumers against power companies that are using the smart meters you’re encouraging to be installed to gouge people?
Ms Savage: This rule change that Simon has just referred to I’ve referred to will put that protection in place.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that what’s it’s designed to do? Is that why you’re bringing it in?
Ms Savage: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What tangible benefit are consumers supposedly getting out of smart meters?
Ms Savage: It’s a really great question. I’m going to give you a bit of a techie answer, but in Victoria, where we’ve had smart meters for some time, when we look at the rate of asset utilisation and the distribution system and compare to jurisdictions that don’t have smart meters, there is actually much higher utilisation. We see utilisation rates in the high 70s, whereas the average utilisation rate across the National Electricity Market is more like 43 per cent. Part of that is because the smart—
Senator ROBERTS: How do you measure utilisation?
Ms Savage: How much network is built to meet peak demand versus how much latent for the rest of the day.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the idea to try and decrease the amount of peak network capacity?
Ms Savage: It’s to try to ensure that, basically, we ‘ve got loads filling up the holes in the day so we’re not building too much network, that’s right. What you see in Victoria is the level of utilisation is much greater, so the overall network cost is much smaller. Customers are really benefitting from the reduced need to invest in networks, because of improved utilisation, so that’s one benefit. We also—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Ms Savage. Is that because consumers know when to utilise the network?
Ms Savage: That’s part of it, and it can be the visibility the network has over some of these assets as well. I know you and I have talked before about some of the different types of tariffs that exist in Queensland, like controlled load tariffs et cetera, particularly with pool pumps and things like that. Being able to move these types of discretionary loads—not heating, cooling, dishwashers or lights, but some of those moveable loads through the day—can actually avoid investment in the network, which is a great thing for consumers in keeping bills down.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question related to smart meters. I raised at a previous session the issue of air conditioners being throttled by power companies. You seemed unaware of that issue when I raised it. Have you had time to review the article I supplied confirming that actually did happen at an alarming frequency? I think it was six times in a matter of months.
Ms Savage: I think that was a question about the PeakSmart device. You gave it to us on notice, and we’ve responded on notice. Is that correct, Steph? Yes.
Australia has a housing crisis fueled by excessive immigration and a shortage of skilled tradespeople. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is fundamentally flawed and unlikely to offer real solutions.
Why are we importing millions of migrants when Australians are sleeping on the streets?
The major parties talk about the housing crisis but fail to make a real impact.
One Nation is the only party that can be trusted to put Australians first.
Transcript
We have a housing catastrophe due to rampant immigration—excessive, reckless, record immigration. We also have a housing crisis because we don’t have enough tradies to build the houses that we need. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is a bill that won’t help anyone. Right now, Queenslanders, in what should be the richest state in the world, are sleeping under bridges and on riverbanks. In one of the world’s richest states, working families with children are living in cars, coming home at night to wonder if their kids are still there. Where do they toilet? Where do they shower? It’s plain inhuman. Rents are skyrocketing—if a rental can be found. House prices are reaching record highs. This is a housing crisis, one of the worst we’ve faced. It’s an inhuman catastrophe.
Last year, the federal government under Anthony Albanese brought in 517,000 net migrants. This year, after being promised that we would have lower immigration, we are tracking to have another new record—one above last year’s. How can you bring in more than a million people in two years? That’s hundreds of thousands of houses. How can you build them? We aren’t catering for the people already here, and now we’re bringing in record numbers—a million in two years. That’s 400,000 new houses needed, in addition to the already high demand and the people living homeless at the moment.
The Albanese government, though, wants to look like it’s doing something—not do something but look like. Enter this Help to Buy plan. Under this plan, the government wants to own a significant part of your house. If it’s an existing place, the government wants to own 30 per cent, and, if it’s a new place, 40 per cent, with the government paying for part of it with low-income earners. While a 40 per cent subsidy might sound attractive, it’s fatally flawed. If the government just borrows more money for this plan, then one thing is going to happen. When you give 40 per cent more money to people to buy a house, house prices are going to go up. House prices will go up. The bill’s core concept and premise is flawed and possibly a lie. We can’t subsidise our way out of a house price problem. Subsidies always increase prices and have throughout history. Looking at the bill’s details, or lack of details, the problem is worse. I’ll look at some of the criteria in a minute.
Thirdly, let’s look at the constitutional basis. This bill is completely outside the federal government’s powers. It’s highly complex. The government has tabled a late amendment to the bill, attempting to clarify a set of constitutional issues—too complex.
I’ll go back to the immigration. In addition to rampant immigration of people coming into the country, prior to COVID, the number of temporary visa holders in the country was around 2.3 million people. As of the end of 24 July, that number is now 2.8 million—more than 10 per cent of our population—all needing a roof and all needing a bed. These are hard numbers and facts. This is what’s causing the housing catastrophe. These are the hard numbers and facts, as I said, yet the government has continued to lie, claiming, ‘We’re just catching up with immigration.’ Really? We haven’t just caught up; we’ve blown the record out of the water, not only for people on resident visas but also for new immigrants coming in. We’re nearly half a million people above the record for resident visas. Using the average household size of 2½ people per household implies the need for more than 200,000 houses just to cater for new arrivals. It’s actually 400,000. This is what we’re seeing in our country.
Then there are the details. For an Australian who enters into a Help to Buy arrangement, where the government owns part of their home, what happens if they renovate their home at their own expense, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours swinging hammers and pulling up carpet, and, as a result of their renovations, their $500,000 home increases in value to $600,000? I wonder whether the minister knows how much of that Australian’s renovation profit the government will take for doing nothing. I wonder whether the minister knows that the income thresholds are set nationally—$90,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples—despite the average house price varying from $504,000 in Darwin to $1.2 million in Sydney. I wonder why the government is not adjusting the income threshold from state to state. What are the price thresholds for houses eligible under this bill, and why haven’t these been set in the legislation? Why are we bringing yoga teachers into the country, through immigration, when we need tradies? Yoga teachers are wonderful, but we need tradies to get on with the job here.
The government has appointed three sets of bureaucrats as part of its solution to the housing crisis. That’s just adding to the complexity and inefficiency. It’s adding to the catastrophe. We need tradies to come into this country. We need people to be vetted properly, to bring in their skills and to contribute. We have so many people in this country out of work, living on welfare, and not contributing. We have an abundance of people with good qualifications who want to come into this country. We can put them to work and fix the housing crisis quickly. These are just some of the issues that I’ll be exploring more in the committee stage. I want to put those comments back on the record.
