In the middle of a housing crisis, developers are locking up land, waiting for it to get worse so they can sell it at higher prices.
While cutting immigration is the number one solution to the housing crisis, we also need to look at foreign-owned companies that seem to be waiting for house prices to get even more expensive before they build more.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: A car is the third-biggest investment cost of a person’s life, usually. Housing would be No. 2. Government is far and away the biggest cost during a person’s life. Let’s move on to housing. Are you doing any work in the property market in terms of land development? Some developers are acting like a cartel and keeping land locked away in the middle of a housing crisis, waiting for the demand get even bigger to raise their price. What are you doing in this space?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Our exposure will arise in mergers, and we reviewed what was voluntarily notified to us— a merger in terms of the function of masterplanned communities. It was an acquisition that brought together assets; Lendlease was selling some assets which went to Supalai. In relation to the Illawarra area, where we considered there would be too much concentration post the transaction, we required a divestiture in order to retain continuing competition. One exposure we have to this, and an important role we have, is merger control. With the reforms, if passed by the House, we will have much more visibility in relation to the transactions we need to look at. If we were to become aware of cartel conduct or reports of anticompetitive conduct, that would absolutely be within our enforcement remit against anticompetitive conduct. We do not have an overall supervisory function in relation to housing. It arises in relation to maintaining and promoting competition.
CHAIR: The committee advises that it is releasing the Productivity Commission; you go with our thanks.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of any developers withholding land from the market to bump up prices?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: I don’t believe we are aware of that, no.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/gGWFuojDhMg/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-02 14:10:002025-01-02 14:55:25Developers Locking Up Land
There’s nothing worse than spending tens of thousands of dollars on a car for it to breakdown after its driven out of the dealership. Unfortunately, lots of Australians are left without any help when this happens.
I asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about what they’re doing to protect Australians who end up in this situation.
The protections in place aren’t good enough. One Nation believes every Australian should be able to get an easy refund if their new car breaks down.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’m pleased to hear you say in your opening statement that the cost of living is important and that competition impacts the cost of living. I’d like to understand a little bit about the motor vehicle industry and your involvement in it. There seems to be some systematic level of ‘lemon’ cars being sold by some manufacturers. If they feel there are no consequences for selling dodgy products, won’t that have a significant impact on competition in the motor vehicle industry?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: This is an important issue that the ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection regulators are very engaged in. In terms of a range of new vehicles, they are each subject to consumer guarantees so that there is an underpinning of fitness for purpose and that they meet the qualities and specifications on which they’ve been sold. The ACCC is seeking, and the government has announced, reforms to the law such that if there are contraventions of a guarantee, including on a motor vehicle, the ACCC can take action not solely to require giving a consumer the remedy, which currently is an action that can be taken—
Senator ROBERTS: ACCC can do that?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We can. However, consumers find it very difficult to do so. We find it is a poor way to get actual compliance. The law reform proposes that that will actually be a breach of our act. Where you see repeated indications of this, that we can seek significant penalties as well as consumer remediation—it is reported to us and to state and territory regulators that this is a problem particularly a problem for low-income families and consumers, and it is a problem we seek to take action on with the states and territories. Being able to take action for a serious and systemic breach and to get significant penalties will be the best deterrence.
Senator ROBERTS: In other words, you will strengthen your provisions and add provisions to it.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. That is what we are seeking.
Senator ROBERTS: Specifically because you’re aware there are systemic quality issues among some manufacturers.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Exactly.
Mr Greiss: We’ve also taken, over the years, quite a number of actions for those types of systemic issues against a number of car manufacturers—Ford and Mazda, just to name two. They are very intensive exercises, very resource intensive. As the chair just pointed out, the ability to penalise for failure to abide by the consumer guarantees will be a very important reform.
Senator ROBERTS: That was a comprehensive answer; thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/yW_7YV0IeJE/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-01-02 14:00:002025-01-02 14:54:51Lemon Car Dealers Let Off the Hook
While I’ve covered much of this material in my Senate speeches, Matt masterfully brings it all together in just 1 hour and 18 minutes. He also makes a powerful point about NSW Labor’s attempts to alter voting patterns to entrench their hold on power. Sly move!
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-12-29-205224.png?fit=624%2C349&ssl=1349624Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-29 20:55:272024-12-29 20:55:31Matt Barrie’s Keynote Speech at the Northern Beaches Liberal Party Event
I had a fantastic time chatting with Brodie Buchal on The Right Side Show! We dove into a range of topics, from Australian politics to the heated debate over the Under 16’s social media ban bill. We also tackled the lack of accountability in government processes and so much more.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-12-29-200244.png?fit=861%2C483&ssl=1483861Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-29 20:05:422024-12-29 20:05:44Podcast: The Right Side Show
I inquired with the Australian and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) about the responsibility for the safety of chemicals. I was informed that the APVMA is responsible for the safety of the chemicals they issue permits for, while the States are responsible for their application and that permits are issued based on the safety data on the chemical labels.
I mentioned that there were discrepancies between the data in the safety brochures and the actual permits and was asked to bring that information to their attention.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I will just continue. What was going to be my second set of questions, I will do now because I will continue on from Senator Canavan. There is label use and there is permit use. Where are the Australian environmental impact studies for both these chemicals regarding widespread applications in South- East Queensland and northern New South Wales? Do they have to do an EIS?
Mr Hansen: Not an EIS, but they need to meet the environmental thresholds of the statutory criteria in terms of not being harmful to the environment, and that’s an assessment that gets done by APVMA before we issue the permit.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s built into the permit?
Mr Hansen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who is responsible for that? Is it APVMA?
Mr Hansen: It’s our responsibility to look at how they are proposing to use it, to put the restrictions on how it should be used to make sure there is no impact to the environment, and then the actual following of those instructions are the responsibility of the state jurisdictions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’m appreciating your succinct answers. How does the program justify treating areas with no evidence of nests, and how can this be effective if the bait is only active for 24 hours after application?
Mr Hansen: I’m sorry, that’s something for the program.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know why there are discrepancies and contradictions between the latest permit and the safety data sheets regarding safety precautions and application guidelines? I think the permit they are talking about is the permit of the helicopter.
Mr Hansen: For the aerial applications.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Hansen: I heard that question before. I would be interested to see what the variations are—particularly the variations between label and not necessarily the safety data sheet but the label and the permit. If there were differences on that, I’d be interested to see them if you had them.
During the recent estimates, I raised several questions regarding the approval and use of mRNA vaccines by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). I inquired if the APVMA has authorised any mRNA vaccines. Mr Hansen confirmed that, as of now, no such vaccines have been approved. To ensure thoroughness, Dr Maria Trainer, joined the discussion. She reiterated that no permits or authorisations for mRNA vaccines have been issued, although she stated that there is a general permit for small-scale research (Permit 7250) that might cover such activities.
I questioned whether the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries had acted with APVMA’s consent in importing, testing, and manufacturing an mRNA vaccine for border disease. Dr Trainer clarified that while no specific permits were issued, research could legally occur under the general permit. For clarity, I asked for confirmation on whether the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute holds such a permit and was told that this would be provided to us on notice.
I also addressed concerns about the development of mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease by the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Dr Trainer confirmed that no applications for these vaccines have been received, with Mr Hansen adding that notifications about genetic material for vaccines would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and Biosecurity.
Lastly, I raised the issue of foot rot vaccines for sheep, noting that an overseas manufacturer has been approved while an Australian manufacturer has had its approval withdrawn. The overseas vaccine is more expensive and less effective.
I urged the government to commit to a process that ensures the availability of the more effective and affordable Australian-made vaccine for our sheep farmers. Senator Chisholm agreed to take this on notice, and Mr Hansen expressed openness to discussions with the Australian manufacturer for product registration.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to my first and most important set of questions. At previous estimates, I have asked if an mRNA vaccine has been approved by your agency, and the response was, ‘No it hasn’t.’ So let me first update, has the APVMA authorised for use any mRNA vaccines?
Mr Hansen: I understand the answer is still no, but if we are going to go down a line of questions on registration of vaccines, do you want me to get an expert to the table?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you like. That’ll make it quick.
Mr Hansen: Excellent. It will be Dr Maria Trainer, but, as far as I’m aware, the answer is still no to that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The New South Wales department of primary industries has imported, tested and now manufactured an mRNA vaccine for border disease for New South Wales at the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute. Was that action taken with the consent of the APVMA?
Dr Trainer: We have not issued any permits or authorised any messenger or any vaccines in Australia anywhere, but we do have a general permit for small-scale research, permit 7250, that potentially would allow for the research being conducted.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know if they are doing research, but they could legally be doing research under a permit?
Dr Trainer: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice to provide whether or not the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has such a permit?
Mr Hansen: Provided they met the criteria around the small scale, and that’s spelt out under the permit, then we wouldn’t be informed about it. But that’s something we can certainly make an inquiry about.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, and could let us know on notice, please. The Elizabeth Macarthur Institute has also declared they are developing mRNA vaccines for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. Have they applied for or advised you of their handling of this incredibly dangerous genetic material?
Dr Trainer: At this point in time, we’ve received no applications to register or authorise any messenger RNA vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t heard from them?
Mr Hansen: No, not on that, and I’m not sure that we would be the people that they would notify about bringing in the genetic material for the vaccine. That would be more likely DAF and biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I was told when looking into this matter that once we have foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease material in Australia, we can risk our disease-free status. Is it a true statement that if the Elizabeth Macarthur Institute mishandles this material and one animal is infected with foot and mouth, Australia will lose our disease-free status and the $20 billion a year this brings in?
Mr Hansen: That’s well and truly in the domain of DAF and biosecurity.
Mr Lowe: That’s an outcome 2 question.
Mr Fennessy: I can tell you that some of the work we may have done in the past is done offshore, so not in Australia. We might work with overseas labs. But it doesn’t come into Australia unless there is a biosecurity permit, and there haven’t been any permits allowed for that.
Senator ROBERTS: Who should we put a question on notice to in regard to that?
Mr Fennessy: To the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get on to something quickly. I’ll put most of it in a letter to the minister on a question on notice. There’s also foot rot for sheep. I’m advised that an overseas manufacturer has been given approval and the previous Australian manufacturer has not had its approval withdrawn. The overseas manufactured vaccine is more expensive for sheep farmers based on the need to more frequently apply it plus the cost. It is less effective, and the locally made, therefore, is more effective, cheaper and of higher value than the foreign made. We also have a declaration from a veterinarian that the local product is far more effective. Minister, is your government prepared to commit to a process—I’ve condensed a lot of things into this, and I will put it in detail in a question on notice—whereby it identifies or quantifies the need for this Australian manufactured vaccine and work on foot rot with the relevant parties to ensure the availability of this vaccine for Australian sheep farmers?
Senator Chisholm: I’ll take that on notice.
Mr Hansen: I can provide one more sentence to that, which is that the Australian-made vaccine had an emergency permit because there was no other registered product available in the market. The moment that there became a registered product that had actually come through the front door and had met all the safety criteria, the criteria for an emergency use permit no longer met. We would love the producer of that Australian-made product to come back through the front door for registration as a product, and we’re open to conversations with them on that when they are interested.
Senator ROBERTS: So would veterinarians and so would farmers. They would love that Australian manufacturer to come back. I must say, Chair, Mr Hansen’s comments have been exactly as you said: precise, succinct and direct. I love your forthcoming and forthrightness.
Senator Chisholm: You were the problem!
CHAIR: You got the MR tick of approval, so you’re on a roll here. Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.
Since the High Court held that forced ankle bracelets and curfews on ex-detainees are unconstitutional and punitive, the government has indicated its intention to legislate measures that would empower the Minister to enforce restrictions for the purpose of ensuring community safety. This approach is likely to fail for the same reasons outlined by the High Court in YBFZ.
What is needed instead is legislation to expand the judiciary’s power to order such measures, which would ensure separation of powers, rather than leaving it with the Minister, who is part of the Executive.
The Albanese Labor Government caved into to public pressure and scrapped the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 (MAD). This was a huge win for ‘We The People,’ who rejected the level of government tyranny the bill would have legislated.
One Nation has opposed the Bill since the Morrison-Liberal government first proposed it four years ago. We have campaigned tirelessly for years to raise public awareness of the human rights failures in this Bill, successfully influencing public opinion. The Bill should never have progressed to a point where democracy itself stood on a precipice. If that sounds dramatic, then you haven’t read the submission to the Senate inquiry into the MAD bill from human rights and civil rights lawyers.
I hope this marks the beginning of an awakening to the realisation that our country faces a bleak future of totalitarian government and economic decline unless everyday Australians reclaim the government from the self-interest that stained this Bill.
One Nation will continue to defend the human rights of every Australian. I can’t say the same for the other parties. I have no doubt this Bill will return in the next Parliament unless One Nation gains the balance of power in the upcoming federal election.
Transcript
Removing the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 from the Notice Paper was a humanitarian act. It’s said that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. If that’s the case, I would like a paternity test on this vote, because many who are taking credit for voting down this bill only decided their vote last week. One Nation has opposed the bill since the Morrison-Liberal government first proposed this bill four years ago. One Nation has campaigned for years to raise public awareness of the human rights failures in this bill, to inspire public opinion, and we were successful. It should never have progressed to a point where democracy itself stood on a precipice. If that sounds dramatic, then you haven’t read the submission to the Senate inquiry into the mad bill from the human rights and civil rights lawyers. They were scathing. How did committee members listen to three days of testimony with almost every witness calling for the bill to be scrapped yet still produce a report that said, ‘Everything’s fine; pass the bill.’ The original decision of the committee to do just that flies in the face of the expert witnesses who the committee asked to testify. Such an action will make it harder to attract the high quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted. It’s disrespectful to all concerned, and it’s disrespectful to the Australian people, who expect better of this Senate.
I understand why the Prime Minister wants censorship—he has been community noted on X 10 times and certainly needs help with the truth. For One Nation and Australia, the Christmas present in this debacle was the way everyday Australians got involved. This was an extraordinary response and one of which Australia can be proud. I hope this is the start of an awakening to the realisation that our country, this country, is facing a bleak future of totalitarian government and economic decline unless everyday Australians take the government back from the self interests which stained this bill. One Nation will defend the human rights of every Australian—every Australian.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/om0w1PWzhKQ/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-29 08:32:022024-12-29 08:32:05Public Pressure Forces Albanese Government to Scrap Misinformation Bill
The climate division at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is just another part of the alphabet soup of agencies that are dedicated to bringing in net zero goals.
Although no one at the desk wanted to tell me their salaries, the fewer than ten senior executives in the department rake in $4.5 million a year. Secretary David Fredericks, who responded to my question, is on a total package of $907,000 a year.
Are you getting value for money?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: As simply as possible and as specifically as possible, what do the people responsible for outcome 1 at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water do? What is your basic accountability, especially in regard to energy?
Mr Fredericks: In many ways, I can’t do any better than our corporate documents.
Senator ROBERTS: How long is that?
Mr Fredericks: Very short. It’s the outcome that we are held to account for by the parliament and ultimately by the ANAO, which is to support the transition of Australia’s economy to net zero emissions by 2050; transition energy to support net zero while maintaining security, reliability and affordability; support actions to promote adaptation and strengthen resilience of Australia’s economy, society and environment; and take a leadership role internationally in responding to climate change.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That’s exactly what I was after. What is the total salary package of everyone at the executive?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the corporate questions were at 9 o’clock this morning. We’ve released the corporate people.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/QKiSbasMiRg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-28 20:02:112024-12-28 20:02:13Alphabet Soup Agencies: Are Taxpayers Getting Value for Money?
According to information from the crew working on Snowy Hydro, the reason the Florence tunnel boring machine became jammed while drilling a bend is because it was used for too long between scheduled maintenance. This practice reduces production costs and increases boring rates, however as the cutting wheels wear down, the tunnel is cut to a narrower width. In this case, the machine jammed on a bend where the full width was needed for clearance.
I asked about this at the last Estimates and received a partial admission that the jam was due to worn cutting wheels, but that it was a one-time occurrence. I have requested the maintenance logs for Florence to determine if this was indeed an isolated incident or part of a wider problem.
One Nation believes the Snowy Hydro project is a fool’s errand. While the sunk cost (money spent so far) is around $4 billion, completing the project will cost an additional $20 billion. This does not include the drilling region, which is full of asbestos – a can of worms yet to be addressed.
Another problem is that the electricity from Snowy 2.0 is being sent to Victoria and South Australia via Hume Link, which began construction this week. Hume Link involves putting two high-voltage power lines (two towers) across 360 km of bushland, which will require clearing, as well as farmland and forcibly reclaimed private property. This will cost another $5 billion.
All this expense just to provide firming of unreliable wind and solar power, when a zero emission coal plant could do the same thing for a few billion.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know if this was asked before, but is Florence moving?
Mr Barnes: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How long has she been moving?
Mr Barnes: She has been moving in a more predictable fashion since July and a total length of 1.6 metres and we are now achieving—kilometres. That was true a year ago. We’re now achieving the rates we need to achieve the target date of December ’28.
Senator ROBERTS: How far has it drilled since July?
Mr Barnes: I would have to come back to you on that specific.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can I ask about maintenance on the tunnel boring machines. I understand a cutting head inspection must be performed every mere six to eight metres, stopping every two metres for concrete behind. Is that a fair statement of the normal operation of a TBM?
Mr Barnes: The way the TBM advances is that it excavates a two-metre length, and the concrete segments that form the tunnel lining are then placed into the—the circumference of the tunnel. And that takes about 40 minutes, typically. So in that 40-minute period someone will inspect the cutter head to make sure that they can then do the next two metres. Periodically, we stop it for longer and do maintenance and replace some parts.
Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, weekends are normally used for the inspections on the cutter head.
Mr Barnes: Snowy 2.0 is a 24/7 operation, so it happens as it occurs. So if it was a Wednesday evening when we have to do some maintenance, that’s when we would do it.
Senator ROBERTS: How long has it been 24 hours?
Mr Barnes: Since the start of the construction.
Senator ROBERTS: Since the start. Okay. Thank you. Is it true that the cutting wheels were not replaced at the correct time sometime in the last few months and that the tunnel is, as a result, being built to 11.4 metre width?
Mr Barnes: The tunnel—
Senator ROBERTS: I think the specification is 11.5.
Mr Barnes: I can’t remember the exact figures, but the tunnel boring machine does construct a circumference which is over 11 metres and then there is ground and a concrete segment that brings the interior of the tunnel to just under 10 metres.
Senator ROBERTS: What are the specifications on the drill before you put the lining? Is it 11.5 or 11.4?
Mr Barnes: It’s just over 11, I think is the number.
Senator ROBERTS: Just over 11?
Mr Barnes: We can come back on notice but it is over 11 and then the internal circumference is under 10 because—
Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought they would be very important specs.
Mr Barnes: Well, they are very important specs but I don’t keep every number in my head.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that, but that would be fundamental to the project, wouldn’t it?
Mr Barnes: Yes, they are fundamental and we have an international design joint venture of Tractebel and Lombardi who have signed off on these as specifications that will last 150 years.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there anyone in the room who knows what the designed cutting diameter is? 11.5, 11.4?
Mr Barnes: No.
Senator ROBERTS: No one?
Mr Barnes: No, but we can provide you that information on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: So, as I understand it, the cutting width spec is 11.5 and that because the cutting wheels were not replaced at the correct time, the tunnel as a result is 11.4, which caused Florence to get wedged on a bend. Is that correct?
Mr Barnes: That’s not because of the design characteristics. There was a period in May when we hit very hard rock as we were going around a bend, and that hard rock wore down the edge cutters quite dramatically. I think that happened—I will get these dates wrong, but it happened on a Thursday. We were public on the Friday with that information, and on the Monday we had a specialist crew on site who used high-spec water blasting to relieve that pressure. Florence has now moved forward and is on the straight so doesn’t have any corners to deal with.
Senator ROBERTS: So for clarity, you are saying that Florence never cut a width of less than 11.5. I just said that the spec was 11.5 and the reason it became stuck on a bend was not because the tunnel was being cut to a lesser width, 11.5, as a result of overextending the life of the cutting wheels to speed up excavation?
Mr Barnes: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you please provide the maintenance log on notice of inspections and replacement of the cutting wheels on Florence for the last two years?
Mr Barnes: Probably. I’m not sure what that would help the minister with—
Senator Ayres: We will take that on notice, if we can, and see whether that is something that we can sensibly provide.
Senator ROBERTS: Swinging quickly to Kurri. What is the completion date of the Kurri gas pipeline? I understand the power station will have to burn diesel until the gas pipeline is connected. Is that correct?
Mr Barnes: The current schedule is for the gas infrastructure to be completed by 10 March.
Senator ROBERTS: 10 March next year. Where is the gas coming from and how secure is your supply over the timeframes of 10 years and 25 years?
Mr Barnes: So we rely on a gas portfolio drawing on the national gas grid. We have a range of contracts. Sometimes we access the wholesale market on the day. We announced earlier this year that we had entered into a gas storage arrangement in western Victoria. So I think the simple answer is that it’s a portfolio approach.
Senator ROBERTS: Who owns the storage facility in Victoria?
Mr Barnes: It is owned by a company called Lochard Energy.
Senator ROBERTS: Above ground energy?
Mr Barnes: It’s underground storage. The Iona Gas Storage Facility, I think is the name of the facility.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s rock. It is not lined?
Mr Barnes: No, it’s an old geological storage cavern.
Senator ROBERTS: The Newcastle Herald reported on the Albanese government commitment of $7 million on top of the current $950 million construction cost to allow the plant to run on a blend of hydrogen and gas. How far advanced is the hydrogen component at Kurri?
Mr Barnes: We have now had confirmation of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that with some notification, we can run at 30 per cent hydrogen.
Senator ROBERTS: How far advanced is the hydrogen component of the Kurri plant?
Mr Barnes: We have proven technically with our equipment provider and with some modification, which we have not yet committed to, that would enable us to run 30 per cent hydrogen.
Senator ROBERTS: Any idea of the completion date?
Mr Barnes: We are not currently executing that project.
Senator ROBERTS: So where is the—you are not executing the project on hydrogen?
Mr Barnes: No. We know it is technically capable.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the end of it for now.
Mr Barnes: For now, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Where would the gas come from? Mitsubishi?
Mr Barnes: Mitsubishi are the turbine manufacturer. The question of hydrogen supply we haven’t assessed.
Senator ROBERTS: Any idea at all? Because hydrogen is very expensive to produce, as I understand it.
