Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Universities are Ripping off Students and the Country

,

Many graduates are asking whether attending university and getting a HECS debt was worth it.  For many, the answer is no.

With Vice-Chancellors earning over $1 million a year, degrees are costing more yet worth less.

One Nation would stop universities ripping off students and cut the HECS debt being accumulated. We’ll also require universities to publish the average salaries of graduates for each degree, so you know what you’re signing up for.

Transcript

I speak on the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The university degree system is failing our students and our country. Schoolies is happening right now on the Gold Coast and across the country. These school leavers are too busy celebrating finishing high school to be listening to this speech. Yet maybe their parents will be listening. To schoolies I say: this is the last break some of you will have before heading to university. Enjoy it. Be warned: universities do not have your best interests at heart. Today, they act like a greedy corporate business, and you’re their cash cow. For people heading to uni, please be aware that you’re taking on a very big HECS debt. That debt is meant to be in return for something. Uni is meant to give a good qualification that students can turn into a sound career. For many people, though, universities aren’t doing this any more. Instead, unis are loading up school leavers with millions in debt for degrees that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. 

Many people watching might wonder how they’re getting away with this. If a uni doesn’t give you a degree that can enable you to earn money, and you can’t pay back the debt, then the unis should go broke, right? HECS is completely different. The uni gets the money upfront from the government—from the taxpayers. Then you owe HECS to the government, seemingly forever for some students. The uni gives you a degree that doesn’t live up to its promises and immediately laughs all the way to the bank while you’re stuck paying HECS debt to the Albanese Labor government. The universities’ lust for money shows up in the data. In 2005-06, an average person with a HECS debt owed $10,400. Today, the average debt is an astonishing $27,600. That’s nearly triple in a bit under 20 years. 

The entire system needs a fundamental reset. One Nation believes that the future students at schoolies right now should be given all of the information to make an informed choice about their future. This bill does not help students do that. Every university should be forced to publish the average salary of graduates from each year and degree at one year, five years and ten years after completion as a form of accountability and quality control, putting responsibility back on the universities. This would break the university scam of treating students like cash cows to load up with debt for useless degrees. It would empower school leavers to make a choice that matches their goals based on real-world data, not leave them in the dark. This data is available. Every uni student is required to have a unique student identifier number—a USI. Everyone with a HECS debt has a tax file number. These have been going for years. It would be simple to match up tax file numbers with unique student identifiers and publish graduates’ average earnings, anonymised to protect identity. 

But the government won’t do this, because universities are powerful. They earn unfathomable amounts of money with amazingly overpaid vice-chancellors at their heads—and there’s the core. As the Australian Financial Review’s journalist Julie Hare reports: 

In 2022, Paddy Nixon, the then-vice chancellor of the University of Canberra, which was ranked equal 421st best university in the world, took home a salary package of $1,045,000—the same as Dame Louise Richardson who was running the world’s best university—Oxford. 

In South Australia, Colin Stirling, boss of Flinders University—which ranked 380th in the world—took home a pay packet of $1,345,000. That’s not bad, considering it was over $100,000 more than the salary of Lawrence Bacow, who was head of Harvard University! At the University of Queensland, the vice-chancellor earns over $1.2 million a year—more than double what the Prime Minister earns. 

Despite being defined as not-for-profit and exempt from tax on revenue, these universities are making billions of dollars. In 2023 the University of Queensland generated $2.6 billion in revenue. Half of that, $1.3 billion, was spent on employee expenses, like the vice-chancellor’s salary. The University of Queensland sits on a piggy bank of more than $4.1 billion in net assets alone. These universities are not simple little charities. They’re huge businesses rivalling the top 10 companies on Australia’s stock market. They have abused the social contract with our country and the generous guarantees that governments—taxpayers!—give them. 

This bill would make some minor changes to the indexation of HECS debt, bringing it down from 16 per cent over 2½ years to 11.1 per cent. But it only tinkers around the edges. This bill does nothing to address the fact that the average HECS debt has tripled in two decades. It does nothing to make sure that it’s worthwhile getting into debt for a degree. It does nothing to address the fact that many people going to university would be better off getting a trade qualification. It does nothing to address universities using prerecorded lectures, sometimes more than three years old, and playing them back once a week forever. There’s no expense, just lots of revenue. 

One Nation’s plan for HECS debt and universities would fix all the things this bill does not fix—all the things that this bill neglects. Inflation is compounding in a way that the original architects never expected. We need to stop the pile-on and give people time to pay down their debt. To do this, One Nation would freeze HECS indexation completely for the next three years. 

Secondly, universities must be made accountable for the degrees they’re delivering and the education they’re not delivering. One Nation would force universities to publish the average salaries of graduates from their degrees one year, five years and 10 years after graduation, so that students know what they’re signing up for. Is the debt going to be worth it? 

Delivering degrees is getting cheaper, so course fees should be getting cheaper too. One Nation would cut the fees for subjects that use repeated, prerecorded lectures and large numbers of group assignments. Our universities should be focused on delivering a good education for Australian students first. They should be focused on students first and on delivering good education. One Nation will enforce English standards for international students, so that universities aren’t sacrificing Australian educations to increase profit from international students—to the detriment of Australian students. We’ve discussed that in the past. I’ve raised it. 

Finally, having a HECS debt shouldn’t mean graduates are locked out of buying a house, which they are at the moment. In combination with our people’s mortgage scheme, offering five per cent fixed-rate mortgages, people with a HECS debt would be able to roll their debt into a home loan and pay it off together. Where they can’t get a loan from the bank because of their HECS debt, One Nation will get HECS debtors into a stable, clean, cheap home loan. 

Mr Andrew Norton, a professor in the practice of higher education policy noted during the inquiry into this bill: 

All parts of the system – the original fees charged, the indexation arrangements, and the repayment system – need to work together in a coherent way … 

The parts of this system are not working for the country. Instead, they’re working for highly paid vice-chancellors and the consultants in the education sector. 

One Nation believes in a university system that works for the students that choose to study there and in the same type of support for people doing a trade. Until we fix the core parts of the system, the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is merely tinkering around the edges. That’s all it’s doing. One Nation will make the changes needed to ensure a university system to serve students and to serve our country. 

/by

Real Cost of Living Soars

,

Australians deserve the truth about our economic reality, not sugar-coated statistics. While the official CPI reports 3.8% inflation, the actual cost of living for most working Australians is a staggering 6.2%

We need policies to end the inflation burden created by both major parties. Australia has everything we need right here to be the richest country in the world.  It simply requires the guts to make common-sense decisions – and only One Nation has that guts!

Transcript

 If you think you’re going backwards, you are, and faster than you think. Last Monday, we had an inquiry, as a result of a motion of mine, to understand the CPI figure from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That’s what we wanted to find out: what the Australian Bureau of Statistics does. My inquiry revealed that, as everyone knows, the CPI is 3.8 per cent, but selected living-cost indices that the Australian Bureau of Statistics produces and publishes show that most employees—80 per cent of Australians—face a cost-of-living increase in their spending of 6.2 per cent.  

I’ve got no criticism of the ABS. They do what they’re told. Chart 1 in their submission shows that in 2022, soon after the coalition left, the CPI was eight per cent, and food and beverages went up by nine per cent. That’s the legacy that the coalition left. The CPI price change for dairy and related products over the last four years has been 27 per cent; food products, 23 per cent; bread and cereal products, 23 per cent. This is the reality: both the Labor Party and the Liberal-Nationals are contributing to inflation. The prices of groceries, insurance, housing, rents and energy are all artificial and only One Nation has the policies to be able to solve them because we don’t do what the uniparty does.  

/by

End Secrecy in Defence

,

Transparency and accountability are essential in a democracy, yet this government continues to hide behind a curtain of secrecy, especially when it comes to the higher brass in the Department of Defence.

The refusal to release the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force isn’t about national security—it’s about avoiding embarrassment. We need a process that allows senators to confidentially review sensitive documents, ensuring accountability while protecting the public interest. We must demand a government that serves the people, not itself.

One Nation will fight for our Defence Force personnel to be treated fairly by senior officers. One standard must apply to all.

Transcript

Well, the minister’s explanation is pitiful. Look at paragraph (a)(iv) of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge’s motion. Senator Wong failed to comply. She did not provide the names. Who has been consulted in relation to the release of the report of the 20-year review of the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force? Why is the government continuing to hide? This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. This is the government’s response. The claim isn’t that there was anything classified in the report of the 20-year review of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force that Senator Lambie had been seeking; the claim the minister makes is that this report wasn’t meant to be released because the government didn’t want it to be released, not that national security was under threat, not that there was classified information in it. The government didn’t want it to be released because that would be embarrassing and they would be asked to do something about it. That’s not good enough.  

An order to produce documents that passes this Senate is constitutionally superior to acts of law. The government doesn’t get to decide that they can toss those orders in the bin. This is a rare occasion where we get to see the report even though the government refused to hand it over. Credit must go to Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge for pushing this and to their offices for managing to get a copy of the report. Usually, as senators, we’re left in the dark. The government makes a public interest immunity claim and refuses to hand over anything. The government tells us that if this report was released the sky would fall in, that there would be an earthquake that shatters the public interest. Now, as senators, we’re quite reasonable and responsible. We know that truth reinforces truth. While we might desperately want that information we somewhat trust that the government hasn’t lied to our face and that there would be an actual risk to the public interest if the document were published. Yesterday and today show once and for all, yet again, that the government is completely undeserving of that trust.  

The minister’s explanation clearly isn’t sufficient, and the current process for ordering documents is failing the Australian people and the senators seeking information on behalf of the people—information that belongs to the Australian people. To that end, I’ll again be proposing a new, additional way for handling orders for documents. When ministers make a public interest immunity claim, the claimed harm results from releasing the document to the public. There’s a way to make sure this is a win-win. I’ll go through it again. It’s making sure sensitive information isn’t released while at the same time ensuring senators get the information needed to make informed decisions. The way to do this is to establish a process for senators to confidentially review ordered documents without releasing them to the public.  

This proposal may sound familiar to some. I first raised it in 2022, and this Senate supported a reference to the Procedure Committee for inquiry. With respect to the senators on that committee, the response was lacking. The inquiry was given four months to report on the issue, did not seek any submissions and produced the Procedure Committee’s first report of 2023 of a towering two pages. While the committee declined to endorse the proposal, they did confirm that it’s feasible. The committee committed to further report on the process for the order for the production of documents later in 2023. No report was delivered. Imagine that. Given the increased frequency of orders for the production of documents and the nearly blanket ban the government seems to be applying on transparency, it’s time to deal with this issue again. 

This proposal is relatively simple. If the minister makes a public interest immunity claim, they wouldn’t have to release it to the public but they would have to release it to us—the senators—confidentially. A majority of the Senate could then decide whether the minister’s claim is legitimate and the document deserves to be kept secret from the public. It’s true that, just like a normal order for the production of documents, the minister could refuse to hand over the documents to the committee. Since no harm could flow from public disclosure in this process, it would be apparent that the only harm the government would want to avoid would be embarrassment. That gives us a better reason to apply sanctions for noncompliance, which the Senate is rightly cautious to do under the current process. In making a public interest immunity claim the minister would be automatically required to nominate a standing committee to receive the document, and only senators would be allowed to review it.  

I will be submitting a notice of motion with some draft amendments to the standing orders for senators to consider over the break. I welcome their input and any suggestions to make these changes better. The Australian public deserves transparency, and as the Senate, the house of review, we must deliver accountability on this government. Recent weeks in this chamber have shown debacle after debacle. The government is in chaos. Australia has a chaotic government, and the people pay for that—enlisted people and veterans pay for it. The Senate’s scrutiny will help the government to govern and reduce the chaos. We are willing to help you, and that’s what our help will do. The people deserve the truth, openness and accountability. (Time expired) 

/by

Australian’s Data Must be Protected

, ,

With a Digital ID framework established, our data is more important than ever. Why does it seem like the government is willing to hand Australian data centres over to foreign interests?

The government is more interested in serving their donors, who are connected to multinational corporations, than in looking after Australians. Only One Nation will put Australians’ interests first and protect their data.

Transcript

We have to wonder whether this government is capable of stopping any bit of Australia being sold to foreign multinational corporations, or is it all just part of its digital ID plan? We’re going to find out when the Foreign Investment Review Board makes its decision on the $24 billion buyout of Australian-founded data firm AirTrunk. AirTrunk is the largest data centre platform in the entire Asia-Pacific region. A conglomerate of multinational investment firms and foreign pension funds is about to buy it. It wasn’t that long ago the government somehow let China buy a 99-year lease to control the Port of Darwin, Australia’s most northern and strategically vital port. Less than a year ago, the Albanese government decided to keep letting China own the 99-year port lease. Many are still dumbfounded. How could we ever let this happen? 

As data becomes as valuable as gold in an increasingly digital world, we may one day look back at the sale of AirTrunk in the same way. Data is fast becoming an essential utility for the entire world. All the opportunities a digital world presents are clear yet the risks of profit-hungry corporations and increasingly tyrannical governments abusing digital identity outnumber the benefits. 

In a digital identity world, where privacy protections are paper-thin, sovereign control of our data centres is a matter of economic and national security, and personal security. Unfortunately, except in the most severe and blatant cases, the Foreign Investment Review Board has a track record of not appreciating the importance of Australians owning Australia. We can anticipate that the Foreign Investment Review Board will rubber-stamp this deal, like so many others. The data centres that Australians’ sensitive data passes through and sits in will become foreign-owned. Let’s put Australians first and ban foreign ownership of sensitive companies.  

/by

Electrification Overhaul: The Costly Future of Australia’s Energy Strategy

, ,

Electrification is an essential component of the Albanese government’s net zero strategy. It involves turning every device that consumes energy to electric: replacing petrol cars with electric vehicles, swapping gas cook tops for electric ones, removing gas hot-water systems in favour of electric, and even making barbecues electric. Everyday Australians will bear the costs of this insanity. To me, it’s unwise to place all our eggs in the electricity basket when we are reimagining our grid to depend entirely on weather-dependent generation. Yet, to the government, such heresy is “disinformation.”

Achieving electrification will require a massive upgrade to our electricity transmission network to meet the higher demand, especially from electric vehicles. However, even this alone will not achieve electrification, as there just isn’t enough generation capacity from wind and solar to ever meet the heightened demand. Consequently, the government is pursuing companion strategies.

First, people will be incentivised to purchase wall batteries to go with their rooftop solar systems, which will connect to the grid. To manage evening and morning peak demand, the government plans to draw power from these batteries, restricting users from operating power-intensive appliances like air conditioners and pool pumps.

If you have an EV, this strategy means the power stored in your wall battery—intended for overnight charging—will also be taken. There’s even a plan to plug EVs directly into the grid to draw any charge you may have managed to store in your battery if required to keep the grid working.

This won’t be enough on its own, so the government has introduced a new building code mandatory for new homes, which will add about $50,000 to construction costs. These changes include completely sealing homes to keep heat out, which may lead to moisture build up and mould.

Ceiling fans will replace air-conditioners, while rooms and homes will become smaller, ceilings lower and spaces more compact, with no garages and narrower streets, as people will not have cars.

Welcome to your future under electrification. Watch the video for more on this madness.

Transcript

Electrification is an essential part of the Albanese government’s net zero strategy. Electrification consists of taking every device that consumes energy and making it electric: petrol cars replaced with electric cars; gas cooktops replaced with electric ones; gas hot-water systems ripped out and replaced with electric; barbecues only electric—which is no fun at all. Everyday Australians pay the cost. 

To me, it’s unwise to put all our eggs in the electricity basket when we are reimagining our electricity grid to rely entirely on weather-dependent generation. To the government, of course, such heresy is mere ‘disinformation’. I’m sure Minister Bowen is champing at the bit to declare any online critics of net zero as threatening the environment, leading to a ban on ‘disinformation’. 

The truth is that electrification is something we must debate. There are real risks to the public, and the price tag is astronomical. So let’s start with safety. The internet is reporting that China has banned electric vehicles from underground car parks, following a Daily Telegraph story on the weekend. The inference is that the ban was from the government, when in fact the Telegraph made clear the ban was from car-park owners and from apartments above the car parks. It’s businesses acting to protect themselves and their customers. Local news reports that property owners were spurred into action after 11 intense battery fires in Hangzhou. The reports have revived fears in China that the new low-carbon-dioxide technology is more trouble than it’s worth. Definitely—yes, it is. One viral social media post involved a Hangzhou car showroom catching fire after a display car spontaneously combusted. It was a brand-new vehicle. There was no issue of faulty maintenance or handling. As has been correctly reported, the science is clear: ‘when EV batteries do overheat, they’re susceptible to something called thermal runaway,’ says Edith Cowan University academic Muhammad Zhar. This article goes on to say: 

That’s when physical damage— 

or a manufacturing fault— 

triggers a chemical chain reaction within the battery. 

It can be a short circuit. It can be a puncture. Or an external heat. 

Such damage can lead to a high-temperature fire or toxic gas explosion. 

“About 95 per cent of battery fires are classed as ignition fires, which produce jet-like directional flames. The other 5 per cent involve a vapour cloud explosion.” 

That was written by Edith Cowan University academic Muhammad Azhar. 

Recently, five cars were destroyed when a damaged battery fell from an EV parked at Sydney airport. A Tesla went up in flames on the road after contacting debris that fell from a truck near Goulburn. No ways have been developed of smothering a lithium-ion fire. The safest place for an EV is in the open air, where any fire can be contained until it burns out without destroying the property of others in the process. 

Secondly, when it comes to electrification, the elephant in the room is cost. The process consists of rebuilding the national electricity grid, generation and transmission. Energex and Powerlink have identified emerging limitations in the electricity networks supplying the Brisbane CBD. The power grids in Brisbane and across Australia were not built for our modern population density and certainly weren’t built to take the full load of energy that’s now required to electrify houses, cars and businesses. They note corrective action is required to avoid network overload and to avoid load shedding—known as ‘brownout’—which is when the power is selectively switched off to houses and businesses to prevent a wider blackout. Smart meters will make brownouts easier, providing the ability for power companies to remotely turn off air-conditioners and power to living areas, leaving the kitchen circuit functioning to keep the fridge on. New houses are being built with that circuit arrangement. It’s control. 

The cost to rewire the grid to convey solar, wind and pumped hydro from the point of generation to the cities and then rewire the city and suburban grid for the higher electricity demand has not been costed. I have asked the minister repeatedly in the last few weeks for those costings, and it is clear that none exist. Let me help the government. Visual Capitalist consultancy has done independent costings showing that the cost of rewiring the grid and adding firming—back-up batteries and pumped hydro—is about 30 per cent of the overall electrification cost, or $300 billion, on the consensus figure of Australia’s $1 trillion cost—which I think is about half of it. 

In the electrification agenda, cost concerns relate to the national building code. The idea is to avoid having to rewire at least parts of the grid through lowering household electricity usage to make room for charging EVs in the existing power grid. The targeted production is 50 per cent less power—half of what you’re using. Remember that Australians are already using 10 per cent less power than five years ago. The Australian Building Codes Board has a rating system called NatHERS which rates housing standards from one star to 10 stars. The current code requires seven stars. The code includes a measure of whole-of-house energy efficiency, which rates your home compliance with a net zero ideology, including heating and cooling, hot water systems, lighting, pool and spa pumps, cooking and even plug-in appliances. Our Big Brother is poking their nose into every aspect of your home in the name of saving the environment. 

The actual building code component of the building code calls for the sealing of homes to prevent outside air coming in. This creates issues with condensation, meaning mould, which other aspects of the code may alleviate—may. Clearly nobody involved in this new code has lived in a Queenslander-style home that relies on airflow to keep the house cool. The new ideology-driven code will add $50,000 to the cost of construction of a new home, partially offset through lower electricity costs. The reduction in electricity costs will not be a lot because your energy bill is composed mainly of a fee for poles and wires, margin fees and admin fees, not electricity usage. As I have explained, the poles and wires charge is going higher than Elon Musk’s spaceship. 

The cost of the new code to everyday Australians will be massive. We have 11 million homes in Australia and, so far, only recently built inner-city apartments meet the code. A quick calculation: $50,000 per home times 10 million homes is a $500 billion theoretical cost. Not all homes will be done. Many will just be bulldozed and replaced with tiny apartments to house Labor’s new arrivals. Economies of scale may result. Yet the actual cost of building upgrades is expected to be 15 per cent of the transition cost. With a transition cost of $1 trillion, that’s building upgrades costing $150 billion. On the more likely $2 trillion transition cost, building upgrades will cost $300 billion. That’s money everyday Australians will have to pay or will lose when they sell a non-compliant property for a reduced price. In all the time I have heard net zero debated, the shocking cost of converting buildings has never been mentioned 

And wait; there’s more! Converting transport—trucks, shipping and aviation—is not mentioned. It’s another seven per cent—$70 billion. Eight per cent of the cost is made up of hydrogen development, carbon dioxide scrubbing and industry conversion costs. Add another $80 billion. The cost of new generation to replace affordable and reliable coal power with weather-dependent solar and wind fairytale power is the remaining 40 per cent, or $400 billion. Remember, we already have this coal generation. Electrification requires us to shut down the generation we already have and build it over again in solar and wind. The problem climate change carpetbaggers are now running into is simply this: the best places for these things have been taken. New installations are going further out, requiring higher transmission costs and higher maintenance costs. Residents are starting to see the environmental damage caused to our native forest and animals, and to farmland. The resistance has started. 

Let’s not forget wind and solar last for, at best, 15 years and then have to be replaced again and again and again. This means that every single industrial wind and solar installation will need to be replaced at least once before 2060, and more likely twice. The replacement process will be never-ending. Every 15 years the whole lot gets replaced again and again and again. The transmission network will require constant maintenance. Having added an additional 10,000 kilometres of poles and wires, the extra maintenance costs will remain in electricity bills forever. The truth is the public will never finish paying for net zero electrification. 

The good people over at Visual Capitalist have given calculating the cost of net zero a fair crack based on data on US National Public Utilities Council. Their total cost to electrify Western countries before 2060 is US$110 trillion. Insane! Australia’s share of that is currently estimated at $1 trillion; however, looking through the US data, which is more advanced than ours, a cost as high as $2 trillion is much more likely. 

The costings I’ve presented tonight are not firm. I hope they encourage the government to come clean with the costings they have to allow for an open, mature debate—one which asks: is it time to walk away and try something else? Like emission-free coal, for example. For a fraction of this money, we can simply retrofit coal plants with new technology that captures and converts carbon dioxide to useful products like fertiliser. Or stop collecting this because carbon dioxide is beneficial. For some reason, the government doesn’t want to talk about new coal plants. Hmmm; I wonder where that list of ALP donations is again? I suggest journalists go looking. 

This energy fairytale is going to cost so much money it’s never going to happen. Australia can’t afford it. How can Australians who are struggling with the cost of living under Labor afford trillions for electrification? The further we get into this, the more stupid and the more dishonest the idea looks. Ideology-driven bureaucrats, politicians, academics and journalists have put us on a path to ruin. Climate change carpetbaggers will be this country’s death. The rorting, the boondoggles and the waste of taxpayer money is just getting started. One Nation will end the net zero electrification scam and make Australia affordable again. Net zero is a scam, and One Nation is the only party that will stop it. 

/1 Comment/by

Stop the Net Zero Agenda and Protect Our Economy

,

In October, the Climate Change Authority released its roadmap for achieving the “net zero transition,” which effectively is the destruction of our industrial and agricultural base and introduces communist level controls over every aspect of our lives.  Named the Sector Pathways Review, this is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It should be compulsory reading for every Australian who is intent on joining the migration of lemmings over the net zero cliff. 

The authors claim to have consulted widely, presenting this document as a consensus on the way forward, but this is far from the truth. Their so-called “consultation” consisted of a whip around at universities and government departments that financially benefit from the net zero scam. Unsurprisingly, these stakeholders welcomed the prospect of more money, power, and self-importance. 

The climate change narrative has been structured to work backwards from the goals outlined in this report, which functions as a mechanism for Communist control. The unfounded confidence and hubris displayed is based on scientific fraud, data tampering and cherry picking. 

The link to the report is on my website at:  

One Nation is committed to ending the net zero destruction of our economy and way of life. 

Transcript

I move to take note of the Climate Change Authority’s Sector Pathways Review, which is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It should be compulsory reading for every senator and every journalist intent on joining this migration of lemmings over the net zero cliff. Net zero is not some feel-good agenda; it’s a fundamental destruction of our productive capacity, our businesses and our freedom to rebuild in the image of the bureaucrats, academics and carpetbaggers that produced this report. The report authors hide behind the term ‘consultation’ yet consulted within their own urban bubble and got the answers they wanted—yes to more money, yes to more power and yes to more self-importance. The climate change narrative has been constructed to work backwards from the goal detailed in this report—I’ve read it with my own eyes—a Communist control mechanism, a control mechanism that I’ve never seen so clearly explained as in this document, with such unfounded confidence, such hubris, based on scientific fraud, data tampering and cherry picking. 

Let’s go through it. Firstly, replacing petrol and diesel powered vehicles, appliances and industrial equipment with electric versions—that’s your car gone. The government will force you to buy an electric vehicle or have no vehicle at all. Gas heaters and hot water systems: gone. Gas cooking: gone. Gas barbecues: gone. Commercial kitchens: put over to electric, which will force many to close, as the cost is prohibitive. For families already struggling with the cost of living under Labor, these measures will mean losing their possessions without being able to afford a replacement. This will become reality once the circular economy arrives in full, requiring a much higher build standard and repairability and high levels of recycled components. That sounds great—just wait until we see the price tag. Appliances would have to be rented because most people won’t be able to afford them. Remember the famous promise from the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab, ‘You will own nothing and be happy’? Are you seeing it yet? Secondly, we will need to generate more wind and solar power than ever before. For Australians living outside the urban bubble, this will mean every mountain and hill will have a wind turbine on top and even more farmland will be covered in solar panels and fractured with transmission line corridors and access roads where none were previously needed. Every home will need a solar installation connected to a wall battery—$15,000 right there. Yet the power is not yours; it’s theirs. To keep the grid on, your power company will take the charge out of your wall battery or your electric vehicle—yes, your electric vehicle. This is what the report means when it says ‘grid integration’. It’s sometimes called a virtual power plant. It’s not virtual power; it’s your power. 

Thirdly, the report accepts that, while some technologies, like solar and storage batteries, are now proven, many other necessary technologies are not. They have no clue what’s coming. The decision to rely on unproven, speculative technology across much of their sector analysis—punctuated as it is with weasel words like ‘could’ and ‘may’—will inevitably underperform. The report says: 

The authority has not attempted in this report to examine how, where or when such future breakthroughs could occur. 

It’s hard to believe they’re jeopardising the whole country on this. We are spending between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, destroying everything we have, on the promise of a better future based on breakthroughs that we know don’t exist yet and are not even imagined. That’s criminal malfeasance—and, given the strong flow of money from net zero carpetbaggers into the climate change nomenklatura, a stronger word may be appropriate. As the Age reported today, the Clean Energy Regulator: 

… has failed to manage conflicts of interest or properly investigate fraud … and … staff … concerns about its relationship with the companies it regulates. 

Under net zero cronyism, the suffering of everyday Australians and their employers has only just begun. The last thing abattoirs will slaughter is farming itself. The plan uses the discredited claim that ‘livestock accounts for half of agricultural emissions’. This ignores the methane cycle. That’s high school science. I know the disciples of the sky god of warming have rewritten the methane cycle and discredited those using it and advancing it, yet science can’t be rewritten—only lied about, as this report does. 

The reason for this spurious war on cattle is clear in the report: reducing our emissions will ‘require the conversion’ of agricultural land to forested areas, and ‘the supply of suitable land for reforestation is limited’. The farming sector must realise that the bad guys are coming to steal more of your rights to use the land you own. The people who will have the money to buy red meat and naturally grown produce after 2050 are the same people writing this elitist, antihuman garbage. The same people who gorge on filet mignon and champagne at Davos tell everyday Australians they will have to eat less. And you will have less, being forced into city high-rise homes and eating lab-grown meats and fast-cycle hydroponic greens with next to zero nutritional value. Based solidly on science and with every fibre of our being, One Nation opposes this agenda. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 

Leave granted; debate adjourned. 

Sector Pathway Review 2024 (Full Report)

https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sector-pathways-review

2024SectorPathwaysReviewDownload

Sector Pathway Review 2024 (At a Glance)

SPR at a glance – FinalDownload

/2 Comments/by

United Nations Pact for the Future – A Power Grab by Global Billionaires

,

The world’s predatory billionaires are continuing their quest to rule the world for their own benefit, with vassal states like Australia recently signing onto their latest power grab – the United Nations Pact for the Future.

Before this Pact can take effect in Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will need to conduct an inquiry, followed by both Houses of Parliament voting for ratification. The public still has time to bring to heel the globalists running the Albanese Labor government.

The Pact is essentially a comprehensive wish list for global governance. On the upside, it lacks detail, firm language, and binding commitments. These were in the original draft but were removed to push the diluted document through. Even then, nine nations voted against moving towards a vote, and 40 more abstained. The UN doesn’t have the support it needs to press ahead with any significant theft of national sovereignty. However, that won’t stop some traitors in our Parliament and bureaucracy from handing it over, claiming that “the UN told us to.”

Only One Nation is committed to standing against the transfer of wealth and power to the world’s predatory billionaires and their lackeys in the United Nations, World Health Organisation and World Economic Forum.

Transcript

Last week the United Nations passed its Pact for the Future. Before the pact can come into effect in Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has to do an inquiry, and then both houses of parliament vote for ratification. The public have time to bring to heal the globalists running the Albanese Labor government.

The pact is a comprehensive wish list for world governance with no detail and no implementation plan. There are 56 bold actions—really, they’re fluffy motherhood statements. For example, action 2, which I will quote in full, is:

Action 2. We will place the eradication of poverty at the centre of our efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda.

21. Eradicating poverty, in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is an imperative for all humankind. We decide to:

(a) Take comprehensive and targeted measures to eradicate poverty by addressing the multidimensional nature of poverty, including through rural development strategies and investments and innovations in the social sector, especially education and health;

(b) Take concrete actions to prevent people from falling back into poverty, including by establishing well-designed, sustainable and efficient social protection systems for all that are responsive to shocks.

That’s the entire section on eliminating poverty. It looks like the AI author trained only on children’s picture books.

Do you remember Labor’s failed slogan: ‘By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty’? The pact is not a pandemic treaty. The word ‘pandemic’ is not mentioned. COVID is not mentioned. The World Health Organization is not mentioned. There are no penalty clauses for noncompliance. There is no dispute clause, because the pact does not include anything tangible enough to dispute. In the formal vote to adopt, 45 nations opposed it or abstained. What happens now is that our globalist government will sign up to any and every theft of Australian sovereignty it can while saying, ‘The United Nations made me do it.’ No, the United Nations did not. Whatever nefarious attack on agriculture, standard of living, education and human rights the government is planning is entirely this government’s responsibility.

/16 Comments/by

True Inflation Rate at 6.2% – Far Higher Than Official 3.8%

,

The Consumer Price Index shows inflation at just 3.8%, but how accurate is that figure? Every time I shop, it feels much higher.  

Recently, I was successful in getting a Senate Inquiry into how the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) maintain the inflation index and the answers were interesting—inflation is worse than the official figure suggests.

The ABS actually produce several different measures of prices changes. The media often cites one of them – the CPI, which serves economists, bankers and the treasury, who use it to see how the economy is going as a whole, but it’s not an accurate measure of price changes that affects consumers.  

To address this, the ABS produce the Living Cost Index (LCI), which looks at how much the cost-of-living has changed for different groups. The largest of these groups is for employees, which covers about 70% of Australians and reveals that inflation is actually 6.2%, significantly higher than the CPI figure of 3.8%. This difference largely stems from how house price increases are included in the index.

So, it’s clear: people are struggling more than the CPI suggests. If you feel like you’re working harder and getting nowhere, it’s because you are.  

One Nation is committed to reducing government spending, reducing inflation and making your pay stretch further.

Transcript

I rise to take note of the Economic References Committee report into the Australian Bureau of Statistics production of inflation statistics. This inquiry was called on a Senate motion that One Nation introduced. I thank the committee for their time and I thank the Australian Bureau of Statistics for their honest, direct and professional answers. In an answer to my question in Senate estimates, the Reserve Bank governor advised that it uses many other indicators to get a clearer understanding of the cost of living affecting everyday Australians, not just the CPI. This was the comment that led to last week’s inquiry. Many people assume the CPI is an accurate picture of the cost of living for everyday Australians. What we learned from the ABS, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is the consumer price index is a macro economic indicator useful to the government, Reserve Bank and industry to show how much prices have changed. That’s not the same as asking how much cost-of-living spending has increased for everyday Australians. That cost-of-living data is trapped using other indexes called selected living cost indexes. These are produced for subsets within the economy based on source of income. The largest group is employees, comprising 15 million current wage and salary earners. This is more than 70 per cent of the Australian adult population. This index shows the rate of inflation affecting the largest cohort of the adult population in Australia is actually 6.2 per cent. That feels much more accurate than the official CPI rate of 3.8 per cent. Even at 6.2 per cent, the figure is not entirely representative. The living cost index for most Australians does not include the insane increases in house prices, as Senator Rennick and I pointed out in questions. 

The ABS traps the increase only in building costs, not the increase in land cost. The average home price in Queensland in 2020 was $524,000. In 2024, it’s now $815,000. Most of that inflation is in the land price. Unless home price inflation is included in the living cost index then Australians are quite honestly being misled—badly misled. The ABS is not misleading; it’s producing the statistics the government asked it to produce. 

So I wonder who decided to use the CPI rate as the official picture of inflation in Australia, because it’s wrong. Why don’t the media report the living cost index showing 6.2 per cent inflation affecting most Australians, and that it doesn’t represent costs including houses? All except one of these living cost indexes shows a higher rate than the 3.8 per cent CPI. Why is the media misleadingly reporting the lowest figure instead of the real figure covering most Australians? 

I have been using adult Australians here for a reason. This inquiry confirmed the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not collect data for inflation affecting the cost of raising children. The latest data my office could find was from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which found it cost $340 a week to provide for two children, a girl aged six and a boy aged 10. That data was from 2018. We don’t know what it is today. There’s not time-series data, no inflation rate over time for children and that seems pretty poor. There are 5.7 million children under 18 here in Australia. It would be useful to know how much the cost of raising those children is increasing. 

As I travel around Queensland I hear so many parents saying how expensive life is becoming—the cost of living under Labor—and how expensive raising children is becoming. The failure to provide data to government on the outcome of government policies on the cost of raising children and an accurate figure for the cost of running a family is a massive failure, a failure which rests with the minister, not the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I call on the government to task the ABS with providing an accurate figure for inflation affecting families. It worries me that it is the figure of 3.8 per cent, not the much more accurate figure of 6.2 per cent, that’s used for wage increases. According to the OECD’s economic outlook report, real wages in Australia are now five per cent lower than they were in 2020. 

Remember, those house prices I mentioned, up from $524,000 to $818,000 in Queensland in four years? After adjusting for inflation, everyday Australians looking to buy their first home are trying to afford that mortgage on five per cent less income. No wonder homeownership seems an impossible dream for young wage and salary earners. Wages should reflect the real cost of living under Labor. Government spending and handouts reduce the inflation rate yet this money started in the hands of employees, who paid that to the government in tax, and the government gives it back to people in subsidies, less the government’s cut for administration. Is this the much-touted Greens circular economy? 

I’ll finish with an idea. Reduce the size of government. Let people keep more of their own money. If everyday Australians feel they’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because they are. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 

Leave is granted; debate adjourned. 

/4 Comments/by

Coalition Complain Labor’s Renewable Target is Behind Schedule

,

The coalition is complaining that Labor’s “renewables” target is falling behind, which is a good thing!

It’s time to tell foreign, unelected organisations backed by billionaire donors to stop dictating what we do in Australia and to bugger off. Australia’s wealth should be used to benefit Australians, plain and simple.

Transcript

For those watching at home, we’re debating a motion the Liberals-Nationals coalition introduced proposing a matter of public importance. The motion complains that, ‘Labor’s 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target is way behind schedule.’ I have two responses to that: ‘Who cares!’ and ‘Good!’ Renewables are the collection of wind, solar, hydrogen, battery, pumped hydro and other scams that parasitic billionaires own and pump up with billions more in taxpayer subsidies. Every new solar panel and every new wind turbine installed represents another increase in Australians’ power bills. 

I commend the Liberals and Nationals for further opening the debate on nuclear, which One Nation has always advocated. I cannot abide, though, the insistence that we do nuclear so that we can meet net zero targets. Net zero is economic suicide, human catastrophe and environmental disaster. The only thing that can truly bring Australian power bills down is coal and, in North Queensland, hydro. To comply with net zero, the coalition’s proposal is to forcibly acquire coal-fired power stations, shut them down and replace them with nuclear. We don’t need to end coal to do nuclear. We can do both. Why would we stop using coal here while we ship hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal to China and other countries every year. The United Nations World Economic Forum net zero target: that’s why. A foreign, unelected bureaucratic organisation is telling Australians what we can and can’t do. 

There’s only one solution: tell the foreign, unelected organisations and their billionaire donors, like Bill Gates, to bugger off. Australia is one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. We should be using every bit of these resources right here for the benefit of Australians and especially for getting back to being the source of the world’s cheapest electricity. Put Australians first. 

/4 Comments/by

Infrastructure Investment Can Address Australia’s Economic Disaster

,

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the Albanese Government have created the worst economic conditions in Australia in 30 years. In an attempt to shift the blame for this mess, the Treasurer has unfairly targeted Reserve Bank Governor, Michelle Bullock. The reality is that the RBA has increased interest rates in response to the government’s policies. While the Treasurer could order the Reserve Bank to lower interest rates, the Government knows that doing this would make Australia’s economy worse. So instead, they trade insults. 

It’s time for Treasurer Chalmers to stop the bullying and focus on solutions. Infrastructure is the key to overcoming this economic disaster. 

In this speech, I outline how One Nation plans to bring down inflation and reduce interest rates.

Transcript

In the last few days Australians have witnessed an unedifying sight: the Treasurer blaming the Reserve Bank for policy outcomes that are firmly the government’s fault. When Treasurer Chalmers was rightly criticised for his misbehaviour the Labor Party rallied the troops, dusting off Labor Party artefact Wayne Swan to defend the Treasurer. This display is why people dislike and distrust politicians. The reality is that high interest rates are the direct result of economic policy under successive Liberal and Labor governments—policy that damaged our manufacturing and farming sectors whilst transferring gross domestic product from real jobs in the private sector to jobs in the government sector. Reserve Bank Governor Bullock’s interest rate strategy is a response to Labor government policy. Labor government policy has decided the RBA’s strategy. 

Instead of bullying the Reserve Bank governor into taking further interest rate rises off the table, Treasurer Chalmers could take action to prevent the need for those rises. Balance the budget and reduce government spending to match your income; Minister Shorten tried to bring the NDIS under control, and you forced him to walk the plank. Stop replacing base load power with net zero wind, solar transmission lines and battery back-up, driving up electricity prices and sending the government into debt. Reduce immigration, which is distorting the housing market and inflating government welfare and infrastructure spending. Stop giving grants and subsidies to foreign multinationals operating solar and wind here, and instead encourage local companies who retain the wealth here. Develop our productive capacity through a national rail loop enabling an Australian steel industry. There’s $100 billion of production, 40,000 real jobs and $25 billion in government revenue just in the Capricornia steel proposal at Queensland’s Abbot Point and the port of Gladstone every year. Treasurer Chalmers should stop bullying and start building, which is exactly what a One Nation government will do. 

/4 Comments/by