I asked the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) whether Drag Queen story times are part of the curriculum.
Initially the answer was a firm NO from David de Carvalho, before circling back and side-stepping the issue by saying he was processing the question.
I asked what control or influence the national curriculum has over state schools and was told there is some freedom to adapt and adopt before implementing the curriculum.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. We have a number of constituents—quite a few—who are very concerned about the story I’m going to tell you about. Can you please advise me which part, if any—because the ABC got it wrong last time—of the Australian Curriculum relates to drag queen storytime? Right, thank you. We have schools that are hosting drag queen storytimes where they’re getting drag queens in to read stories to children. It’s happening on the Sunshine Coast and in other parts of Queensland. It’s done on school time, so we thought that surely it has to relate the curriculum for them to do that. That’s why I’m asking in that section. My second question—because you’ve denied it, which I thought would be correct—is: what control or influence does the national curriculum have on state schools?
Mr de Carvalho: I’m not sure I denied your question; I was waiting for the full extent of it.
Senator ROBERTS: You indicated quite clearly that it doesn’t exist in the curriculum.
Mr de Carvalho: I indicated, I guess, that I was trying to process the question with a view to giving you a sensible answer. I may ask Ms Foster to contribute there. What was the second part of your question?
Senator ROBERTS: What influence does the national curriculum have over state schools, and is there any compulsion to follow the national curriculum? What are the responsibilities?
Mr de Carvalho: There is an agreement that states and territories will implement the Australian Curriculum, but each of them does that in a slightly different way. The terminology that we use in relation to this is that states and territories are free to ‘adopt and adapt’ the curriculum to suit their local circumstances. That is the agreement, and different states and territories are in different parts of the plan to implement the Australian Curriculum. They’re going through and looking at it and determining to what extent they can adopt it fully. Some states’ curriculums are very close to the Australian Curriculum, and other states adapt it slightly before implementing it.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it done on a state-by-state basis, or are individual schools free to go wherever they want?
Mr de Carvalho: We have three sectors in the country. Jurisdictions—certainly in the state school systems—tend to take a uniform approach for their jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions have different mechanisms for adopting and adapting the curriculum. For example, in Victoria there is the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority; in Queensland you have the Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority; and New South Wales has the New South Wales Education Standards Authority. These are the bodies in those major jurisdictions which have a close look at the Australian Curriculum and then determine how, if at all, it should be adapted for those jurisdictions. WA have their School Curriculum and Standards Authority, and they also undertake that adaptation approach. The other jurisdictions tend to be closer—Queensland is closer, as are Tasmania, South Australia and Northern Territory—in terms of their implementation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/l-4YBecEixM/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-01 11:41:042023-11-03 14:20:40What Part of the School Curriculum is Drag Queen Storytime?
I reminded the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) about information that was provided to me during previous estimates regarding alleged harm from medicinal cannabis. My question was not answered. Instead I was given an excuse as to why adverse events are not recorded for cannabis.
This is not true. There is a second register of adverse events, which is a TGA internal register called AEMS. Medical practitioners have been reporting adverse events to this database for years. The TGA’s own data shows that medicinal cannabis has caused 515 adverse events since 2012. Medicinal cannabis was the sole suspected medication in 454 of these – 174 were serious and 10 were fatal. As Professor Skerritt pointed out in Estimates, cannabis is widely prescribed in palliative care and this outcome is to be expected in end-of-life care where patients are receiving pain relief. In other words, patients died while taking cannabis — not from taking cannabis.
The reason the TGA did not answer my question on the relative harm of cannabis over pharmaceutical medication is because it’s not even a contest. Cannabis has been prescribed over 4 million times across this period and discounting palliative care, medicinal cannabis has not caused a single death or permanent incapacitation. Compare this to over a thousand reports of death just in the last two years from COVID injections. The pharma funded TGA acts in service of the pharmaceutical state and will do everything in their power to ensure medicinal cannabis is not made available to everyday Australians at an affordable price.
One Nation has produced a bill to down-schedule medicinal cannabis so that it can be prescribed by any doctor and filled by any chemist. This simple and long overdue reform has been blocked by the Liberal, National and Labor parties despite strong public support for the measure.
I will continue to advocate for policies that improve the health, well-being and prosperity of everyday Australians.
The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and the government claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are impacting the Earth’s climate above and beyond natural variation. The climate activists’ solution to that perceived problem is to drastically reduce the use of gas, petrol, coal, oil, diesel and the grazing of cattle, sheep and pigs.
Given that BOM claims carbon dioxide from human activity in Australia is contributing to a global situation in such a way that we must cease these activities, I asked the Bureau to provide me, on notice, with the total number of BOM weather stations such data is collected from.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the short term have continued to rise, even during the global financial crisis of 2009 and in 2020 during COVID lockdowns. In fact, real-world empirical evidence proves drastic cuts in human carbon output have no effect on atmospheric carbon levels.
I have put several questions on notice with Dr Andrew Johnson, Director of BOM, and look forward to receiving his responses.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you again for being here again. You and the government claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are detrimentally affecting climate and that, as a consequence, carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut, necessitating cuts in the use of gas, petrol, coal, oil, diesel and farm grazing of cattle, sheep and pigs. Given what you claim about carbon dioxide from human activity, could you please provide me, on notice, with the total number of bureau weather stations from which weather data is collected for the bureau to use, both those that the bureau operates and those that other individuals or entities operate, and, of them, the number that measure atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?
Dr Johnson: Okay. I can probably answer that now.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Dr Johnson: The CO2 levels for our region are measured at Kennaook/Cape Grim, north-west Tasmania. That’s one of three, I think, global baseline CO2 measuring stations. That’s where those stations measure. There are many, many, many pieces of equipment in the field that measure local CO2 emissions for all sorts of reasons, but in terms of the global baseline station, that is at Cape Grim—Kennaook.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know how many stations you have, how many your colleagues—
Dr Johnson: We’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: And how many measure carbon dioxide levels.
Dr Johnson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: And could you provide the locations of any other entities’ stations that are measuring carbon dioxide levels whose data the bureau relies upon for its climate reports and claims, both within Australia and overseas? You’ve already mentioned three.
Dr Johnson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: That won’t be a problem. Now, if you look at the document I’ve tabled—
Dr Johnson: I’m sorry, I’m not in receipt of it—I’m now in receipt.
Chair: You may want to talk to it.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. These are graphs from—the source data is Scripps institute and CSIRO. These are atmospheric carbon dioxide levels measured at those 10 points around the world. Now, it’s claimed that we need to cut the level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, and to do that we must cut carbon dioxide from human activity, correct? That’s what the claim is.
Dr Johnson: Senator, I’m not in a position to pass an opinion on that. Direct that to the department. All I can tell you is that, from our measurements of the changes that are occurring in the atmosphere, it couldn’t be clearer, in terms of the trends we’re observing, and our science—
Senator ROBERTS: I want to ask you about those trends.
Dr Johnson: And our science is very clear that the causes of those trends, to a very large extent, are human activities.
Senator ROBERTS: You claim that cutting human production of carbon dioxide will cut atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Dr Johnson: No. Just to reaffirm, it’s not our role to do that. Our role is to measure the atmospheric, oceanographic and, in some cases, terrestrial phenomena. We’ve never made such claims. All we’ve said is—
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t—
Dr Johnson: that all of these parameters are rising and that the cause of that increase, to a very large extent—a predominant extent—is human activity. That’s all we’ve said.
Senator ROBERTS: So carbon dioxide from human activity is causing a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Dr Johnson: And other emissions—methane and so on—are causing the escalation in oceanic and atmospheric temperatures.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2009, after the global financial crisis, and in 2020, during the COVID lockdowns, we experienced severe global recessions. During those recessions, energy use fell dramatically and the use of hydrocarbon fuels like coal, oil and natural gas for transport, residences and industry was cut severely, leading to dramatic reductions of carbon dioxide from human activity. Yet, despite those cuts in human carbon dioxide production, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise.
Dr Johnson: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: All the Scripps and CSIRO measurement stations reveal no decrease or downward inflection, just continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This real-world empirical evidence proves that drastic cuts in carbon dioxide from human activity have no effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Making the drastic cuts is pointless and is damaging economically and socially. On notice, could you please specify the dates, quantity and duration of any inflections or downturns on those graphs?
Dr Johnson: I’m happy to, Senator. But, very quickly—with the chair’s indulgence—the premise of your question is false. It is a well-established fact that the consequences of human activity have long lag periods between when they occur and when they’re observed in the atmosphere. So, even if CO2 emissions were to stop today, the atmosphere is loaded, as is the ocean, and it will take centuries for that signature to work its way through; hence the urgency around the challenge to reduce emissions now.
Senator ROBERTS: How well is carbon dioxide mixed in the atmosphere?
Dr Johnson: How well is it mixed?
Senator ROBERTS: How well mixed is it?
Dr Johnson: I’m not an expert on carbon dioxide atmospheric mixing.
Senator ROBERTS: How does it vary temporally, spatially and with regard to surface cover—for example, vegetation type?
Dr Johnson: I’d have to take that on notice. I’m not in expert in those matters.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take the next question on notice as well. Given that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over—
Senator Whish-Wilson: Could you just put them on notice now? Could it go to us, because people are waiting?
Senator ROBERTS: I want to get this to make sure I’ve got the question right for Dr Johnson. I’ll put the other two on notice after this. Given that the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the short term and without spatial and temporal context have increased substantially, what impact has this had on global and national atmospheric temperatures? Specifically, what is the rate of temperature increase over the period 1995 to today?
Dr Johnson: Again, you’re asking me a specific question on a specific set of dates. I don’t have that number with me.
Senator ROBERTS: No, on notice. I’m happy for you to do that on notice.
Dr Johnson: If we have that data, I’ll provide it, sure.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you’ve got the temperature data. Could you please specify in your answer the statistical methods and procedures, as well as the data periods and sources of data. Could you please use the global and national atmospheric temperature data from the following sources: from the Bureau of Meteorology, obviously, atmospheric temperature data for Australia and the world—
Chair: Senator Roberts, you can log them in writing, if you would like. And, if you’re asking for an answer, you probably shouldn’t specify where they get the data from. It would be entirely up to them if you’re asking-
Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not specifying the data. I just want some alternatives because there’s variation between—
Chair: But I will speed you up, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to put them on notice.
Chair: That would be lovely.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll also be asking you for NASA’s University of Alabama, Huntsville, and RSS data.
Dr Johnson: You’d probably best direct your questions about NASA data to NASA.
I confronted the ABC about their humiliating defamation loss to Heston Russell and the culture at the ABC. A federal court judge found that the unreasonable actions of ABC journalists led to protracted litigation.
Australian taxpayers are getting a multi-million bill because the ABC got it wrong and couldn’t bring themselves to apologise. Their entire culture needs an overhaul. Will the journalist responsible for publishing
disinformation, failing to act reasonably and costing the taxpayer millions about an elite veteran be punished at all? Apparently not.
The public servants in the Canberra bureaucracy are meant to be impartial. Being impartial would mean they only comment on their ability to carry out laws, not whether they agree with policies ideologically. What we see again and again is that the bureaucrats are not impartial. They make submissions that support the woke policies of the Canberra elite, like net-zero.
I asked the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), who are meant to be the enforcers of the code of impartiality, about one particularly bad example where an agency endorsed the government’s net-zero ideas. Their response? “Well that’s just your opinion.”
The Canberra public service and their referee are so out of touch with everyday Australians that they can’t even comprehend the question. It’s easy to see why Canberra was the only state or territory in all of Australia to vote Yes on the Voice.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. The Australian Public Service works under or in accord with the code of conduct. Is that correct?
Dr de Brouwer: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How does that work in practice? I know that is a broad question.
Ms Talbot: As we alluded to earlier in our evidence, we have the APS Code of Conduct, and that sets out the standards and, I guess, the expectations on all public servants. In particular, the Public Service Act is quite clear around articulating what the APS values are and how they apply to all public servants. I can go into more detail around the code of conduct requirements if you wish.
Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the code drives behaviour or indicates the behaviour or values that are appropriate.
Ms Talbot: It sets out what the appropriate behaviours are, what the appropriate expected standards of conduct are, and it does outline the APS values and goes into some detail about those values.
Senator ROBERTS: So it is broad not specific because it doesn’t apply to just one department or one agency? It’s very broad.
Ms Talbot: It applies to everyone, but sitting underneath that there is quite a detailed document, and in particular sitting under the Public Service Act there are also commissioner’s directions, which go into more detail as well around how everything actually applies.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you elaborate on the Australian Public Service value of impartiality, specifically how the Public Service should be interpreting it practically in making submissions to inquiries?
Ms Talbot: Is there some specific inquiry?
Senator ROBERTS: My concern is that it seems some agencies aren’t being fully impartial in making submissions, especially in the area of climate policy, for example. This is dangerous because it leads to group think. My interpretation of the value of impartiality is that if an agency or department is making a submission on, for example, a law change, that submission should be limited to the agency’s ability to carry out the policy change. That might mean resource considerations and practical issues of whether they can enforce a policy. Is that what you would be expecting in a submission that meets those values of impartiality, rather than making a submission in favour of or against a policy on the basis of political aspects?
Ms Talbot: What I can say is that the guidance around impartiality is reminding public servants that in conducting their duties they are to be apolitical and they are obviously not to be biased in the way in which they conduct their duties. I think you’re asking me more for an opinion around a particular instance that you have in mind.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about several instances. It seems we have some agencies and departments making submissions that endorse the policies being put forward from an ideological standpoint, not only commenting on the practicalities of implementing the policy for that agency or department, as I said. For example, the Australian Energy Regulator made a submission to the national energy laws amendment bill. In that submission they endorsed the net zero policy setting of the government and said they support it, which doesn’t seem to be impartial. Shouldn’t they only be commenting on their ability to implement the changes, not endorsing the policy driving the changes?
Dr de Brouwer: The requirement of impartiality, as Ms Talbot outlined, is that the APS is apolitical. But it also provides advice—and I will quote from section 10(5) of the act—’that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence’. This is within the CER’s view of what is the best available evidence, what is coherent with that and what is required to achieve that.
Senator ROBERTS: So they would be informed by scientific evidence, would they?
Dr de Brouwer: That is what I think the CER will say. You should ask them.
Senator ROBERTS: You are smiling.
Dr de Brouwer: We used to deal with this in estimates 10 years ago.
Senator ROBERTS: Net zero policy is within climate policy. That’s subject to a lot of contention in the public, so supporting that would seem to me not to be upholding impartiality, especially when there have been no logical scientific points, including empirical scientific evidence, to back up net zero anyway in the world. They failed the science test, so surely they are acting partially?
Dr de Brouwer: I think that is your view, Senator Roberts, and it is up to that authority to explain how it views the evidence and provide the explanation to you of why it’s acting impartially.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/c3vqS0T05kM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-26 13:50:452023-12-01 12:11:03The Bureaucrats are Out of Touch and Out of Control
Emerging industries was the topic in this Senate Estimates attended by AgriFutures, an organisation set up by the Australian government to help fund research and development in our rural industries.
I’m pleased to see that AgriFutures is active in hemp research and investing in grants for trials, including one in the Northern Territory. I visited a successful hemp farm in northern Queensland earlier this year and was curious to know if AgriFutures had looked into trials in this part of Australia too.
Although AgriFutures claims its operations are free from political bias, they are tied into the United Nations sustainability goals. Levies paid to AgriFutures are also being spent on carbon farming for carbon trading, which is a contrived market.
Bug farming is another area that AgriFutures is promoting. It involves growing bugs in intensive urban facilities, which is not supporting the farmers in the regions. AgriFutures’ bias towards these policies is doing people out of their jobs. Taking regional jobs and shoving them close to the cities is political no matter how you characterise it.
One of the purposes of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is to allow the globalists to get control of agriculture and food, centralising people into urban landscapes. AgriFutures’ excitement about turning crickets into dog food is just another step towards that future.
ASIC received a significant, detailed complaint of misconduct concerning a company that sells gold, silver and palladium to the public, and then stores the bullion on behalf of their customers.
The complaint suggested the company was selling bullion it did not own, failed to purchase that bullion and had a storage vault incapable of holding the volume of bullion they were minding. Further, that customers are having trouble getting their purchased bullion and there are questions around council approvals and the suitability of their “vault”.
ASIC investigated and found nothing wrong, however there is doubt around the veracity of the audit.
ASIC offered to brief me on this matter, which I accepted.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will move to another topic quickly. As per ASIC’s response to questions on notice, ASIC conducted an investigation involving a precious metals business in financial year 2022-23. This was in response to a complaint regarding the company not holding the precious metals it was supposedly charging storage for. The questions relate to that. Can ASIC describe the nature of the investigation? Was ASIC investigating whether the bullion was fake or missing? What was the purpose of your investigation?
Ms Court: Senator, that’s right. As you say, ASIC has had a complaint. I think as we’ve advised the committee previously, if I talk broadly in relation to gold bullion—
Senator ROBERTS: I thought it mentioned a company name. That’s fine.
Ms Court: Sitting here today, I’m not sure if we have mentioned that company name publicly or not. I’m certainly very familiar with the matter—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, good.
Ms Court: that you are referring to.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s assume we both know the name.
Ms Court: Yes. We received a report of misconduct in relation to that company in April last year, 2022. We have been investigating that carefully. We’ve done a very thorough—
Senator ROBERTS: What was the aim of the investigation? Was it to investigate whether the bullion was fake or whether it was missing?
Ms Court: At a high level, Senator, the aim of our investigation is to ascertain whether or not there has been a breach of the ASIC Act or the Corporations Act, which is—
Senator ROBERTS: So it was both, was it?
Ms Court: Which is what we administer. I’m cautious about how much I say publicly. We certainly took the allegations very seriously. We did ascertain the extent of the holdings, if I could put it in that broad term, to make sure—
Senator ROBERTS: How many clients it has and how much gold it is supposed to have?
Ms Court: Yes, indeed, we did. Indeed, part of the reason that it has taken us some time to conclude that investigation, Senator, is that we have engaged experts in that area to do a physical check, if you like, to ascertain those holdings. We had a significant detailed complaint. We’ve taken that complaint very seriously. We have expended considerable resources on that investigation over the course of the last 18 months.
Senator ROBERTS: How much advanced notice did ASIC provide the company before conducting a physical site inspection?
Ms Court: I would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I understand that ASIC gave the company sufficient time so that it created an opportunity to alter its business affairs before a physical site inspection was allowed—in other words, move gold in.
Ms Court: Senator, as I say, I will take that on notice. I should put on the record that I highly doubt that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The complainant had reports that a large quantity of gold was moved into storage to perhaps make the books balance, a feat that was possible because of the long notice that was provided. Why didn’t you just get a search warrant and turn up for a surprise check?
Ms Court: Senator Roberts, I dispute that characterisation of what has taken place.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you get a search warrant?
Ms Court: I’m not going to comment on our investigatory process in relation to a particular company. Of course, we’re very happy to give you a briefing, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, and a time line?
Ms Court: Yes, indeed. We can take that on notice, Senator.
CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: The company claims to have tens of thousands of storage clients. I would like to know whether you confirmed the clients as well as the amounts of gold that are supposed to be there? Why did ASIC use taxpayer money to test the authenticity of the physical bullion rather than charge the subject?
Ms Court: Senator, I will take all those questions on notice. They do involve a particular investigation. We are conscious that a range of allegations have been made and continue to be made about this matter. As I said earlier, we have focused significant resources in getting to the bottom of these issues. We will finalise our investigation shortly. I’m very happy to give you a briefing in relation to that and to take your questions on notice, Senator. Please be assured that we have treated this with the utmost seriousness.
Senator ROBERTS: Could your office contact my office to arrange a time for a briefing? We are going to be in Canberra quite a bit in the next couple of months?
Ms Court: Yes, indeed.
Senator ROBERTS: That would be good.
Ms Court: We’ll go through the appropriate processes and do that, Senator. We would be very pleased to assist you with that information.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/FFiV_CipmzI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-26 13:08:482023-11-03 14:20:46ASIC and the Case of the Missing Gold
At Senate Estimates, I asked the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) about their input into Labor’s Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill.
Both ACMA and the Minister claim the bill will retain the democratic right to freedom of speech and freedom of political expression. I don’t believe them! The coercive threat of future government action on tech companies will definitely restrict Australians’ political expression.
How can this basic human right be retained when the government and its mouthpiece media will be the only ones with carte blanche to say whatever they want while everyone else’s views will be open to censorship?
Once a government gives itself an advantage like that over its opponents, both in the political arena and among the public, history informs us of the outcome. Democracy enters decline, every single time.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/TiNLHpiM7GQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-25 18:15:302023-11-03 14:20:48Clarifying Where ACMA Stands on the Censorship Bill
I was successful in having the project known as Iron Boomerang referred to a Senate Inquiry. Iron Boomerang is a railway that is really a shopping cart on rails — bringing iron ore, rare earths and agricultural product from West Australia to North Queensland for easy export to markets around the world.
The iron ore will be combined with beautiful Queensland coal in a steel park in Queensland for domestic use, and for export to Asia and the Americas. The trains will then return to Western Australia loaded with coal, where another steel mill in the Pilbara will make steel for export to the subcontinent, the Middle East and Europe.
Estimates predict this project could add $200 billion (10%) to Australia’s GDP creating 50,000+ breadwinner jobs, while securing the nations’ future.
The Committee found in favour of the project and instructed Infrastructure Australia to contact the project sponsors to get started.
In today’s Senate Estimate session, Infrastructure Australia had the hide to say they ignored the request of the Senate Committee. As a result, this nation-building, jobs-rich project has not progressed. Watch this space!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/MEsvnDluY-A/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-25 11:00:572023-11-22 16:02:03Linking the Top End Coast to Coast by Rail
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) assures me that as Australia has very good sunshine and solar energy is the cheapest form of energy on the planet, we can expect to have cheap electricity. That’s nonsense because they don’t take into account all of the extra costs of firming, storage, extra transmission lines and general unreliability. Any Australian who looks at their electricity bill knows solar isn’t cheaper.
I was even more surprised to learn about the agency’s support of solar in renewable iron and steel manufacturing on a massive scale. The idea of such energy intensive industrial process being powered by cheap solar, which is currently too expensive and unreliable for Australian households, is pipe dream stuff.
This government is driving Australia off the cliff and is in the drivers seat essentially saying – “It’s not my job to think about the cliff, I’m just driving the car.” The idea of a net zero future with wind and solar providing base-load power and creating “green steel” is not real.
The net zero pipe dream is a nation killing fantasy that is already hurting the regions, ruining small business and driving up the cost-of-living all over Australia.
