Posts

I informed the Senate that it had lost its way by focussing way too much on international conflicts and spending over a billion dollars on Ukraine while neglecting to fund essential healthcare and hospitals in Queensland and other parts of Australia.

This obsession in providing international aid is misplaced when our own homeless and vulnerable citizens are struggling to access the basic necessities needed for survival.

Australian families are living in tents, children are going hungry and those in power are failing to protect them. Charity should always begin at home.  Politicians must prioritise the needs of Australians before considering assistance to anyone else. We have a national housing crisis and are already in a per capita recession.

It’s time to put Australians first.

Transcript

It’s time for politicians to focus on fixing the problems here in Australia before getting involved in foreign conflict. Last night, yet another motion appeared in the nightly Senate notices from some senators calling for stronger measures to support Ukraine. This Senate only just dealt with a matter relating to Taiwan. The Israel-Palestine war continues to feature in our Senate processes, along with the Uighurs in China and the Rohingya in Bangladesh. Among Greens senators, there seem to be more supporters for terrorist Hamas than for Australia—and that’s my point.

We live in a time when small businesses are closing at record rates—the hopes and dreams of those hard-working Australians broken in a vice of rising costs and falling sales. It’s a disaster arising from deliberate government policy. Supermarkets, traditionally the least profitable of businesses because of the social contract to not rip people off on the necessities of life, no longer honour their social contract.

Parents in Queensland are travelling up to 800 kilometres to access specialist maternity care because parliament has found a billion dollars for Ukraine yet cannot find a cent for Yeppoon, Bowen and the 33 other Queensland towns that have lost their maternity wards. Hospitals in many Queensland rural centres are still called hospitals, yet only offer the services of a GP clinic.

Australian families are living in the tent cities appearing right across our beautiful country. I’ve visited many of these in Queensland, and the sense of betrayal is palpable—and people should feel betrayed. The Senate, as the house of review, has betrayed the very people who trusted us with their vote and who trusted us to have their best interests at heart. Although our Senate does have foreign affairs powers, convention dictates the Senate stays out of foreign affairs and concentrates on domestic matters. It’s time to make that convention great again. Let’s spend our time driving the government to do better to look after Australians. Let’s look after all Australians— all who are here—first.

The Strategic Shipping Fleet proposes tax incentives for selected shipping owners to flag vessels in Australia and employ Australian crews. The plan aims to ensure these ships remain near Australia for potential repurposing during supply crises to maintain essential goods supply.

One Nation supports this proposal, however the published plan lacks detail, particularly regarding the types of freight that would provide commercial viability while keeping these ships nearby. It appears that implementation of this idea is still far off.

The allocated budget only covers planning for another 5 years, yet the Department indicated that the budget did have an allocation for implementation, but that the details were not for disclosure. Publishing such budget information can help guide tendering companies on bid amounts, but it can also be misleading if funding isn’t actually available.

Despite the Minister’s assurance of implementation within 5 years, I remain unconvinced. 

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this evening. I’d like to ask some broad questions on the scoping of the strategic shipping fleet that Labor has announced and that we support. It’s been something we’ve been pushing for a while. Then I’d like to ask a few questions that build on what Senator O’Sullivan’s been talking about. Queensland should be a big winner out of the proposal for a strategic fleet, with a long coastline currently underserved by road and rail transport. A national rail circuit would help that too, and I’ll ask about that later. However, the idea is to encourage private ownership of ships to service the Australian coastline and the Pacific which could then be requisitioned in the event of an emergency, like the next virus or whatever. The report doesn’t go into detail about where the freight will come from, so we don’t know if it’s commercially viable— specifically which companies and how many containers. Do you have any information on where the containers are going to come from to keep container vessels commercially engaged in the scheme? What’s the volume of cargo? Or is it just very early days? 

Mr Johnson: The planned approach in terms of selecting the vessels for the strategic fleet is to approach the market, and there are questions for that marketplace about both the capability of vessels they might put forward to join the strategic fleet and the commerciality of those vessels, which really goes to what freight they’re moving currently and how they propose their vessels will fit into the commercial marketplace. That’ll give us the information on the volumes of cargo and those sorts of things that would be moved on a normal day-to-day basis. But the vessel would be Australian flagged and crewed and therefore, as part of the arrangements to join the strategic fleet, would be available for that requisition. 

Senator ROBERTS: Am I right in assessing then, Mr Johnson, that it’s very loose, maybe deliberately so— and maybe commendably so—and the arrangement at the moment hasn’t been fleshed out? 

Mr Johnson: Part of what we’re looking at in terms of how the fleet’s established is to get the industry to come forward with those views on how that capability might be provided and what’s commercial in the marketplace, rather than us trying to identify what’s commercial. Then the industry would provide that in the proposals put forward to join the fleet, which we would then match up with the capabilities and capacities of the fleet that would suit the purposes for requisition later. So it’d be work with industry to join the two through theapproach to market process. 

Senator ROBERTS: The funding in this budget is $21.7 million over five years, which seems enough to keep a small team of bureaucrats busy but little else. Does that not seem to include funding for the tax incentives and other costs in the scheme once operational? Can you confirm whether the funding is pre-operational only? 

Mr Johnson: You’re correct; that is the funding to support the administration of the strategic fleet— 

Senator ROBERTS: Ongoing. 

Mr Johnson: and implementation of the other recommendations in the strategic fleet taskforce report. The amount of funding to actually support implementation of the fleet has been allocated but hasn’t been announced. 

Senator ROBERTS: Has been allocated but not announced. 

Mr Johnson: Yes. 

Ms Purvis-Smith: It is not for publication, and that is so it doesn’t prejudice the government getting negotiations with market players so that we can get value for money. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I know that during COVID our fuel reserves got down to just two days, which is very poor governance in my opinion. This does illustrate why we need a strategic fleet, but the delay worries me. Can you confirm that, within the next five years, there will not be one extra ship with Australian crew operational in Australia as a result of the scheme? 

Mr Johnson: The intention is to have the three vessels announced in the budget by the government operational within the next five years. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’ve had the maritime union and a shipping operator on the phone asking for more details—actually asking for a meeting with the department and the minister to see how they can respond to this development and swing freight over to the strategic fleet. Should I tell them to come back in five years or will you meet with them to get the ball rolling on planning new freight routes for container transport? 

Senator Chisholm: I’m sure that people would be happy to take a request for a meeting. But, as you heard just then from Mr Johnson, we are keen to get this operating sooner than five years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

While travelling through North Queensland, I held a number of events including in Mackay, Bowen and the Whitsundays. This is what I had to say to attendees on the current issues in Australia before we went into Q&A sessions.

Transcript

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, thank you for being here and thank you for being awake and thank you for making an effort for our country Australia and for our state Queensland, and for the region of Bowen and the Burdekin electorate, and also the Mackay electorate and the Whitsunday electorate. We have got fine candidates who are doing their role as citizens, so thank you so much.

I want to make a confession. Well, before I make the confession, I used to work at Collinsville because when I graduated from university with an Honours Degree in Mining Engineering, I decided I better go and learn something. And I’m serious. I went to the underground mines, mostly underground, one open-cut mine Queensland, New South Wales around the country to get practical experience. And one of them was Collinsville number two, which has since shut. It was an underground mine, so you know about that.

So I used to come into Bowen on some weekends because we used to work five-day weeks in those days. My confession is that I used to vote for the uni party. Now, the uni party is a name we’ve coined because the Liberal National Party and the Labour party are almost identical in policies. There is a reason why I generally put the liberal nationals ahead above the Labour Party in my preferences because the Labour Party, if you stand up, you’re gone. In the liberal party, you may be gone. A few LNP do stand up on a few issues, but they recently demoted who I think is their best senator, to an unwinnable position. That tells you everything you need to know about the LNP, apart from looking at David Cristafulli, who stands for nothing. So we have got to get away from the uni party. I used to vote for the Liberals, used to vote for the uni party. Not anymore. Put the Greens last Labour party, second last and Liberals generally third last. That way my vote if the minor parties don’t go in, gets to the LNP rather than the Labour Party.

I’ll be mentioning one of the gods of the LNP in my talk. He’ll probably come up several times. I thought he was wonderful, then I got the facts. And I’ll show you some of those facts. Our constitution is the only constitution in the world in which the people voted for it before it came into place. Did you know that? This is the only country where the people voted for the Constitution? Who are the only people who can change the constitution? The people. Who elects the government? In our constitution, we have a constitutional lawyer here who’s taught constitutional law at universities. In our constitution, the people are the supreme sovereign entity. Did you know that? The reason we’re in a mess under the leadership of the Uni party, the LNP and the Labour Party with policies almost identical is because we as a citizenry have fallen asleep and I include me in that, I said we.

When I started waking up, I started getting active and I’m going to show you what we did, but I want to compliment the candidates, Julie, Kylie with Andrew for standing up because it’s what we need to do. Government has three roles. Protect life. Both parties have taken lives in the last four years, both parties have taken lives with abortion bills. The second role is to protect property. The man I’m going to raise repeatedly because it just so happens that the facts show that I will repeat his name repeatedly is the number one thief for property rights in this country and it will stun you when I tell you who it was.

The third role of government is to protect freedom. The Uni party, liberal Labour, and liberal Labour have stolen freedoms not just in the last four years, but for decades in this country. Won’t you consider our Queensland? Consider Australia. Look at our resources. The UN itself has said second to none in the world, second to none. We have wonderful people. We’re starting to become less educated because of our indoctrination rather than education in schools now, but we’ve still got very talented people, people willing to have a go. We’ve got the world’s largest market to the north in Asia. We’ve got huge potential.

And yet look at us. We’ve got people in Mackay sleeping in tents, but now that you mentioned it, we’ve got them in Cairns, sleeping in tents under bridges, in cars, working families sleeping in cars, going home at night to their kids in a car, good working families sleeping in tents, caravans, getting moved on by councils. Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rocky, Maryborough, Bundaberg, Gladstone, city of Brisbane, city of Ipswich, Beaudesert. And a lady’s mouthing to me, Bowen. This is disgraceful. We should be the world’s richest state. We’ve got huge debt under both parties.

So I want to talk first about housing. The great Australian dream of owning your own home is increasingly out of reach for many Queenslanders as housing supplies dwindle, housing demand increases and construction costs soar and people are sleeping in tents. We visited some yesterday. We visited two lots in Mackay, one out near Marion-

Speaker 2:

Out in Julie’s electorate.

Malcolm Roberts:

… Julie’s electorate.

Speaker 2:

And then the one in the city.

Malcolm Roberts:

In the last five years, homelessness has increased 22%. That’s under liberal labour Uni party, tents, cars. People are trapped in the jaws of unaffordability. Think about why. Now, Julie talked about the details of our housing policy, I’m not going to go there. I’m going to talk about why. 1.9 million residents with visas in this country before COVID all wanting houses, 1.9 million foreigners. When Anthony Albanese came in, he said, “We will increase migration until we catch up with pre-COVID.” In February last year, 2023, the residents numbered 2.3 million. We were well above already.

But it gets worse than that. We have in the last financial year, 737,000 arrivals in this country, three-quarters of a million arrivals. The net migration, when you remove those who left, 518,000 additions, half a million. When you look at the ratios, that builds a need for 200,000 houses. We are in a housing crisis and Morrison increased their immigration and then Albanese drastically increased immigration.

Why did they do that? I’ll tell you why. Because under the latest stages of Morrison’s prime minister ship under the Liberal National Party and under the Anthony Albanese’s prime minister ship, we have been in a per capita recession per person, and our economic growth is negative, negative. We are in a per capita recession. How do you hide that? Because you don’t want to be the prime minister who’s blamed with a recession, but what you do is you bring a whole lot of people in, bump up the GDP, we’re not in recession barely.

But when you’ve got people sleeping in tents with their kids under bridges, that shows you just don’t care. They don’t give a damn. They just want to make sure they don’t get tagged with the recession. Since John Howard, he was the first to raise immigration dramatically, he almost doubled it and put us on the big, big immigration path, the big Australia path. It got raised from him to almost double under Turnbull and Morrison and then it’s quadrupled under Anthony Albanese. And Peter Dutton has said he will reduce immigration back to very high levels. Insane. I’m saying we need to not only stop migration, we need to, and migrants have been wonderful. I’m part migrant.

We need to actually send some of the resident visa holders home until we catch up with the housing and the infrastructure. So we need to reduce demand. I’m going to get onto some of the key policies that until every Australian in a tent has a roof over their heads, we shouldn’t let foreigners buy houses. New Zealand and Canada have recently said that no foreigners can buy houses in their country. We’re the holdouts. We want to stop foreigners owning houses, residential real estate in this country.

But I also want to talk about a couple of other things. We want to offer the option for a personal super to be invested in primary residence. It’s your money. And then on the sale of the house later down the road, decades down the road, the proceeds are restored to the super fund. What’s wrong with investing in your own house? It’s real estate. Second and thirdly, we want to create 5% mortgages. Ditch Labor’s Housing Future Fund. Sounds wonderful. They said it’s $10 billion. What they didn’t tell you and the media didn’t tell you was that it’s $10 billion put in a fund and then the return on investment of that fund is invested in houses. Could be $300,000, $300 million. That’s it. It’s not a $10 billion fund and they didn’t tell you that three lots of bureaucrats come with that future fund. It’s bullshit.

So we want to replace that with a new people’s mortgage scheme, which will pump out 5% mortgages, low interest rate mortgages to people who qualify. Then the next one. Some people have done what they think was the right thing and gone to university and developed a HECS debt. And then when they go to the bank to get a housing loan, they can’t get one because they’ve already got the HECS debt. So what we’re saying is allow people with a HECS debt to roll the HECS debt into their people’s mortgage scheme debt so they’d have one debt that will take longer to pay off, but at least they can get into a house and start paying the damn thing off. So that’s unique to us too.

Julie mentioned we want to review and revise taxes on homes. Currently, 45% of a new house price is tax. Did you know that? Those figures came from the Real Estate Institute in New South Wales and the federal government, government fees, taxes, charges, duties. So we believe One Nation believes in the great Australian dream of owning your own home and we are alone in saying and having policies that will make it easier for Australians to own homes.

Let’s move on to energy. When coal reigned in this country, we had the cheapest electricity in the world. Did you know that? Now as a result of John Howard’s policies and subsequent labour ramping up of those policies, we have the world’s most expensive electricity. We have coal coming out of power state, coming out of mines, going straight into a power station and the electricity costing 25 cents a kilowatt-hour. We take that same coal, put it on a train for a couple of hundred kilometres, transship it at a port onto a boat, send it what? A couple of thousand kilometres to China, Asia, another boat, another port, another handling fees, and then they put it on a train to their port, to their coal-fired power station and they produce electricity and sell it at eight cents a kilowatt-hour.

Why is that? Because they don’t have the subsidies that we have for solar and wind. Your price for electricity, our price for electricity is so damn high because of the solar and wind subsidies that we are giving to parasitic globalist corporations and giving to parasitic billionaires in this country. We’re stealing your money. That’s all it is, for a dream. We’ll talk more about that.

It is a fact that as nations around the world increase their proportion of solar and wind, their electricity price does what? Increases dramatically, not just increases, dramatically. Warren Buffett the most astute investor ever in the world. You know Warren Buffett, ma’am. He says wind turbines are a terrible investment. Subsidise wind turbines, wonderful investment. We have large solar and wind complexes, industrial complexes in the north and west of Queensland and in the western Victoria that have rapidly been built and no thoughts been put into it. They’re not even connected to the grid, but they’re getting money for income for producing electricity or having the ability to produce electricity. Who’s paying for that lack of electricity? We are. So always the people pay.

And then we’ve got subsidies going to these people. We’ve got subsidies for a Eraring power station, Australia’s largest coal-fired power station. We’ve got subsidies going to solar and wind to destroy Eraring. We had commitments to shut Eraring early. Now we’ve got subsidies for Eraring to stay open. It’s funny, but it’s bloody sad. This is an indictment on the LNP in New South Wales and federally and an indictment on the Labour Party in New South Wales and federally. And if you notice the men’s government, the Labour government in New South Wales, it took over a couple of years ago, on the night of the election, the incoming energy minister, she said, “About this Eraring, we might have to think about shutting it.” They know it’s stupid. And then two years down the track, “Oh, we’re going to keep it open.”

And then while we’re subsidising Eraring to shut through solar and wind and we’re subsidising Eraring to stay open now because it’s desperate and the Australian energy market operator is saying that they were forecasting massive blackouts in New South Wales at the end of this year. At the same time, they’re bringing in, and they’ve got in, energy price relief for your electricity bills. It’s insane. So they’ve done it all of their own. And every major climate and energy policy was introduced by which party? Which party? LNP, correct, not the Labour Party. LNP introduced them, Labour comes in and turbocharges them. Then Liberals get in, they introduce more policies to shut down our electricity sector and Labour Party comes in and turbocharges them. Safeguard mechanism, one of the first things Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese did. That was introduced by Hunt and Turnbull very quietly in 2015 in December. It is dishonest.

Coal, nuclear, and gas, and hydro made us independent of the weather. Until then, humans relied upon the weather. And if the weather blessed them, we flourished. If it didn’t, we died. It’s that simple. Coal in particular made us independent. Before coal came along and coal-fired power stations, what did we use for lighting at night? Whale oil, the best friend of the whales is coal. Before coal came along, what did we use for heating and cooking? Wood. I have yet to see a piece of wood that doesn’t come from a tree. So we chopped down trees. The area of forests in the developed continents is now 30% greater than it was a hundred years ago. Thanks to coal. The best friend of the forest and the trees is coal.

But coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro have another great friend, that’s the human race. Our human, if you think about it, we were scratching around, basically most of our ancestors were scratching around in the dirt trying to find food for their kids 170 years ago. 200 years ago, a king or queen would’ve lived shorter, more dangerous, more unhealthy, less comfortable, more rigorous life than someone on welfare in Australia today. That’s a fact. Look at this, everything around us. Everything in this room, including the clothes you wear, is a result of steel, which is comprised of coal and best energy comes from electricity.

Low cost energy, and the prices of electricity and energy generally were on a relentless decline from the start of the Industrial Revolution until 1996, 1997 when the UN Kyoto protocol came into existence. And John Howard said, “We won’t sign it, but we will comply with it.” And as a result, he introduced a renewable energy target. His government stole farmers’ property rights, which is the worst thing a liberal can possibly do. There’s nothing more sacrosanct other than life. He put in place the national electricity market and those things are destroying our agricultural sector and destroying our manufacturing sector and destroying our electricity sector. So we had low cost energy, and when energy decreases in price, it increases productivity, which increases wealth and prosperity, which decreases our cost of living, which increases our standard of living. That transformed our human civilization. And in one fell swoop, John Howard and the liberal party reversed that and started artificially increasing energy prices. And now we’ve got amongst the world’s highest electricity prices. So electricity prices are vital for human progress, vital for productivity.

I was a boy in the Hunter Valley. I grew up in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley and I used to cycle the high school from the bush, we lived out in the bush, past the Alkan Aluminium smelter. It came to Kurri Kurri in the Hunter Valley, look it up because of cheap coal-fired electricity. That’s what’s fundamental for aluminium. It’s gone because of these policies. And when you increase the energy price, it cascades right through the economy. Everything becomes a multiple and all your prices rise. It’s not just Morrison’s high inflation due to his massive spending during COVID mismanagement, inflation. It’s also due to high energy prices and that’s what continues it. We are the largest exporters of hydrocarbon energy, coal, oil, natural gas. They’re the hydrocarbons. We’re third largest in gas now. We used to be the largest, we’re the third largest because America under Biden has passed us in gas exports even though it produces carbon dioxide. So when you add our coal and our gas, we are the largest exporters.

Other countries, China, Asia, India use our coal in abundance. But we can’t use it here because of a lie from the United Nations that is pushed by the Uni party, the liberal labour Uni party. Oh, by the way, I didn’t mention that six years after he was booted from the office, and I was a massive fan of John Howard, a massive fan of John Howard until I started doing my research under climate fraud. Six years after he left office in 2013 in London, he gave an address. And in that address he said, “On the topic of climate science, I am agnostic.” He didn’t have the science. But weren’t we all told that the science is driving his policies? It’s a lie. And I can go in question and answer through the many ways that I have proven that’s a lie by holding people accountable in parliament and in the energy agencies and the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology. But I won’t go into that now.

What I can tell you as a summary is that there is no scientific or policy basis for the climate bullshit. There is no policy basis, no scientific basis, no policy basis for the energy policies that are destroying our electricity sector. None. I’ve asked many, many agencies, not one can give me it. And yet the LNP and the Labour Party are together pushing this down our throats. There are some billionaires behaving like parasites. Do you know what parasites do? They suck the blood out of you and they kill the host, whether it’s a tree or it’s a human. These billionaires behaving like parasites include Holmes a Court who funds the teals, who push subsidies for solar and wind. Is there a conflict of interest there?

I know of no one getting a check from a coal company for opposing this. I know of no one getting a check from a NOAA company opposing this. But here we are, the accusers of that, these lies are involved in a scam, a conflict of interest looking after a billionaire. Have you heard about that in the media? Not more billionaires acting like parasites. Twiggy Forrest. And what did he do in the last couple of weeks? He said his green schemes are falling over and he’s withdrawing them, putting a lid on them for the interim. Then we have Mike Cannon-Brookes, another billionaire. Ross Garnaut is hoping to be a billionaire. And then we’ve got parasitic major corporations, mainly Chinese who are getting the money for our solar and wind. And who pays for all of this? We do.

Chris Bowen, the Ministry of Madness, he says that the transition to solar and wind that’s currently underway, it’ll never be completed. It’s the biggest transition since the Industrial Revolution. And it’ll need this, 40 massive wind turbines every month for eight years at a cost of $12 billion. Now there’s one crane I’m told by Steve Nowakowski, who was agreeing and converted when he realised the environmental damage of solar and wind, he converted. He’s now opposing them and doing a marvellous job, Steve Nowakowski. He said to his knowledge, and I haven’t checked this, there’s one crane capable of assembling wind turbines. It takes two days or so to assemble the crane, then two or three days to assemble the wind turbine, then around two days to dismantle a crane and move it to the next site where you go through the same again. So it takes what? What’s that?

Let’s be generous. Six to seven days to instal a wind turbine. We need 40 massive turbines every month. It’s bullshit. It’s impossible. We need 22,000, these are Bowen’s figures, 22,000 solar panels every day for eight years. A nine kilowatt home solar system the government says we need, that’ll be about $8,000 each, nearly 4 million homes. It would cost $32 billion total. It’s impossible. 22,000 solar panels every day. Come on. So that’s a total of $44 billion for a potential maximum of 54 gigawatts of power. Then the power’s intermittent. On average you get 12.5 gigawatts out of that capacity of 54 gigawatts.

They have a low capacity utilisation. If you build a power station for, coal-fired power station, for a hundred megawatts, it’ll pump out a hundred megawatts. Click, click, click, click, click, click, click. It’ll go down every now and then for schedule maintenance. So it has about 95% or higher availability. And you can plan the outages. Solar and wind their capacity is 23% of nameplate capacity. Instal solar and wind, you’ll get 23 megawatts out of it. On average. On average. But it gets worse. On peak hour early in the morning and late at night, it’s 10% capacity. So that means you need 10 times the number of solar and wind that you’ve installed. You need a thousand megawatts to get a hundred megawatts. And then the life cycle of solar and wind components is about 15 years. So in the life of a coal-fired power station of 60 years, nuclear power station may be a hundred years, you’ll have to change the solar and wind four times. That’s why they’re called renewable because you’ve always got to replace them.

So can you see the huge cost? But then think about this, the huge footprint because you need vast quantities of land and you need 28,000 new kilometres of new transmission line, 28,000. And those costs according to the CSIRO, nonexistent because their costs are forecast at 2030 and all the transmission lines would be built then so we don’t need to include the costs in solar and wind. They’re only being built for solar and wind. We are driving off a cliff with packed in a double-decker bus with Anthony Albanese, Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull, Chris Bowen at the steering wheel.

Speaker 3:

Is that such a bad thing?

Malcolm Roberts:

We’re on the bus! Then you’ve got to add firming costs because wind and solar are asynchronous. They’re inherently unstable. Coal, hydro, gas, oil, nuclear, all synchronous, stable. Then you’ve got to have batteries for when the sun doesn’t shine or you’ve got to build a coal-fired power station for when the sun doesn’t shine. This was all forecast 20 years ago, and labour and liberal are paying no attention. And then on top of that, you’ll be dependent on the weather. And that means very expensive. And who pays for all of this? Who? We do. And then you find coal, not only subsidies for wind and solar, but you find coal is penalised with massive artificial regulatory burdens and solar and wind have to be taken first and coal shut down. That destroys a coal-fired power station. Before everything was fine, it was all humming along.

And then get this. Labour Party’s policy is uncosted. Uncosted. Richard Miles, the Deputy prime minister has refused repeatedly to rule out that the total cost of transition will be more than a trillion dollars. Yes ma’am. What? Dutton says it’ll cost around $1.3 trillion or more. He says he’s being conservative. An independent study says it’s 1.5 to $1.6 trillion for nothing, for a worse system and unreliable high-cost system.

The CSIRO, when John Howard was prime minister said this. This is John Howard’s words, The CSIRO said, quote, “that the only reliable source of base load power was fossil fuels and nuclear.” Why the hell did he bring in the national electricity market? And favours require force the use of solar and wind. So let’s find out why.

Who benefits? First of all, let’s talk before we go into who’s making money out of this. This is going to be very detrimental. The whole of Brisbane’s water supply if some of these proposals goes ahead with solar can be contaminated with toxins, not only Brisbane, Toowoomba, Ipswich, Ben Lee, Logan, Gold Coast. Not here. They’re not going to pump the water up to here. But your own local developments may do that. Wind causes people physical sickness, scientifically proven. Infrasound. It sends businesses broke and families bankrupt. And where do these businesses start manufacturing? China, which produces four and a half billion tonnes of coal. We produce 560 million tonnes of coal, one-eighth. See that in the media? India has ramped up its coal production to be about 1.3 billion tonnes, which is more than double what we produce. This is insane. They’re saying they want what gave us our standard of living. And I certainly agree with them.

They’re killing our competitive advantage solar and wind. Solar and wind are killing our lifestyle, killing our security, killing our future. And I want to compliment Andrew for talking about the 120 byproducts of coal that are in every day use in our society. People are now waking to the solar and wind killing our environment, killing koalas. There are instructions on how to kill koalas to instal a wind turbine, killing our birds, killing our trees, killing our bird breeding lakes in north Queensland, killing our forests, killing our creeks, killing our prime farmland, killing our food production.

And then you’ve got to ask the question, what is clean energy? Right now, you and I are all exhaling carbon dioxide. We take it in at 0.04%. It’s called a trace gas because it’s bugger all of it. There’s just a trace of it. We’re inhaling that and we’re increasing it by more than a hundred times. And we’re exhaling it at four to 5%, 100 to 125 times what we took it in as. You’re all polluters. It’s bullshit. It’s essential for life on this planet. This is being done by the liberal labour Uni party, the ones that I used to support until I woke up. And this is what woke me up. This is what woke me up, realising this. Why are we doing it? Because the United Nations wants to keep Australia in the Paris Agreement, which Tony Abbott signed and the following year, Malcolm Turnbull ratified. Liberals.

The United Nations wants to keep Australia in the Paris Agreement because developed nations are called on by the United Nations to finance the developing nations. China is a developing nation. We’re going to finance China and compensate these developing nations for past emissions and damage due to the climate. Has anyone seen any damage due to climate? Have you? There isn’t any.

So the United Nations is all about revenue raising because it currently relies upon grants, donations from member countries. They want their own revenue and they want half a trillion dollars a year, 500 billion. This is a uni party sellout of Australia, Australian taxpayers and Australian industry. The journal, supposedly scientific journal, it’s pretty crappy nowadays. It’s sold out to vested interests. But the journal nature said that rich countries like Australia would owe middle income countries an estimated 100 to $200 trillion by 2050. Australia’s share would be 5%, which is five to $10 trillion. How about that? Did you know that? The United Nations wants a 5% sales tax on technology, fashion, and defence firms plus a tax on hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas? Did you know that? Did you know that Tanya Plibersek has raised the policy in parliament of a fashion tax, tax on clothing because they don’t want you to buy so much clothing to feed this mob? Did you know that? Just a few months ago.

Neither the Labour Party nor the LNP, the uni party, nor the Greens, nor the Teals have any kind of plan for doing this.

The solutions with one nation are to consider humans, the environment, and national security and to tell the truth and base our decisions on fact. Our number one policy on energy is to use the cheapest energy that is safe, reliable, responsible. That’s hydro, coal, nuclear, gas, oil. Restore competitive federalism, so the states provide a competitive basis. That is a fundamental tenet of our constitution. It’s been trashed by John Howard bringing in the national electricity market, which is a national electricity racket because it’s not a market. It is controlled by bureaucrats who make the rules to favour solar and wind. So we want to embrace coal. We never have let it go. We want to continue to embrace coal. We want to amend the national electricity market so it’s fair and realistic for all sources. Stop artificially inflating coal-fired prices. We want to end the national electricity market. It’s bullshit.

We want to develop new mines and coal-fired power stations. I’ll talk more about that in Q&A if anyone wants. We want to continue to embrace nuclear. We say to Peter Dutton, welcome to the debate on nuclear. We’ve been advocating that for years. Let’s debate it. We have 25% of the world’s uranium reserves. We export them from South Australia, maybe the territory too. We want to repeal the legislative nuclear ban. Support nuclear. We want to base decisions on facts, data, and truth, not lies and emotion. Thirdly, we want to embrace, continue to embrace true hydro, not pumped hydro. That’s garbage generally with very few exceptions, it’s garbage. But real hydro, Tully, Hells Gate, we’ve been pushing them for years. We want to phase out taxpayer funded subsidies for solar and wind. Large scale, immediately stop. Small scale houses, keep going with the subsidies until your contract runs out and then stop. We are tired of subsidising other people’s electricity for a bogus scam.

We want to force rehabilitation on land that solar and wind are heavily impacting. If you’re a coal mine and you uncover so much land to dig the coal out from underneath it in an open cut mine, you have to pay a bond for every hectare that’s disturbed. And at the end of the life of the mine, when you rehabilitate it, you get the bond back, which seems fair to me. Solar and wind, no bond. Just walk off after collecting billions in subsidies, walk off the land and leave it to the farmers to clean up at their cost. So we’re saying no new subsidies. Well hell, why should we have new subsidies when the CSIRO and Labour and Liberal are claiming that solar and wind are the cheapest? It’s bullshit.

We want to amend the national electricity market rules so that energy price reflects the true generating cost in the market value. But I want to get rid of the national electricity market. We want to prohibit solar and wind on prime agricultural land, pristine, natural forest and where there’s a fire risk. We want to prohibit offshore wind turbines. Prohibit them. They’re complex and dangerous. We want to put in place a solar and wind bond. We want to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. There is nothing simpler. We want to end net-zero. It’s a United Nations scam. We want, listen to this one please, we want to use our valuable resources for Australia first. That’s what we want. Now I’m finished. I’m three minutes over time, but we’ll be taking questions.

Julie asked me to talk about the power of the cross bench. Who knows what the cross bench is? Okay, most people. Thank you for being open and honest and saying no, you don’t know. That’s great. That’s the best way to learn. What happens with our federal parliament, it has two houses of Parliament. It has the lower house, and whichever party has the majority forms government. That is currently the Labour Party with less than a third of the vote. So our government doesn’t reflect the country, but that’s the way it is. Okay. So the government has the majority of members in the low house. They do most of the introduction of bills, most of the policies, most of the decisions for governing the country.

And then they produce bills that come up to the Senate, which is proportional representation, which is a fairer system of representation because it means that if you get, say a third of the vote, well hang on, that’s not a good example because the Labour Party’s in government with a third of the vote. But strictly speaking or theoretically speaking, if you have a third of the vote, you’ll get a third of the members in the lower house. Okay? Sorry, you might not get any like Nigel Farage got four and yet had a bigger vote than the Liberals in Britain who got a fraction of his vote. So the direct representation through electorates, you might get 30% in every electorate and not get one electorate in the lower house. But in the Senate you’ll get 30% of the senators because it’s proportional representation for the state. So the Senate is a fairer system and what they do is they’re supposed to protect states’ rights.

So Pauline and I are pretty rare because we fight for Queensland. So what happens then is you’ve got a break on the government and you’ve got a better representation to represent the population as a whole. In Queensland, the Labour Party abolished the upper house, the equivalent of the Senate, as Julie said, 102 years ago. So whichever party has the majority in the lower house just pushes everything through. And the Labour Party has done you no favours. The liberal party under Chris Ofili is promising to do very little. I liked Campbell Newman. Last time when he was in power, he got things done and he was punished for it, punished most severely by his own senior members of parliament in the liberal party. That’s fact. They’ve told me. Liberal members of his parliament told me that.

So we need a balance of power. So there’s no upper house to put a brake on the parliament. So that means rather than let whichever party is in the majority in the lower house, be bullying everything through, we need a brake. So if you get liberal party, say with more representatives than the Labour Party, but not enough to have half, then they won’t form government other than with the cross bench. It’s called a minority government. They will need the votes of the cross bench, the independents, the one nation, the cadders between. So they need those votes. So with Pauline and me, the Liberals under Turnbull, because we had a balance of power part of the time, they would come to us and we would say, “Go to hell with that until you modify these things to make it better for Australia.” And if they didn’t do it, they didn’t get our vote. And if they did it, they got our vote. They quickly worked out which ways up.

So we don’t have the power to govern, but we have the power to put the brakes on the bastards. That’s fundamental. That’s the balance of power. That’s what Julie was talking about the cross bench. So we’re not asking for the power to run the state. We haven’t got any chance of getting that many people into parliament in the near future. But we want, and we’re seeking for your benefit, the power to put the brakes on the bastards. That’s what we mean by cross-benchers. If we have three or four cross-benchers, we will be able to stop the bastards whether it’s the Liberals who have more than Labour or Labour have more than Liberals.

In their recent Motion, the Greens criticised property investors. Perhaps they should heed the saying: “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” or in this case, “Those with housing portfolios shouldn’t throw Senate motions.”

Greens’ Senators Faruqi and McKim reportedly own four properties each, with Senator Faruqi even clearing native trees in koala habitats to build luxury rentals in Port Macquarie. It seems ironic that these Greens, who are themselves property investors, proclaim themselves champions of both property investor critics and koala conservation. The old saying seems true: every accusation is actually a confession.

In well-balanced housing markets, investors play an important part in housing supply. Excessive immigration, however, under successive governments has devastated the Australian dream of home ownership. 547,000 immigrants arrived in 2023 alone, creating a shortfall of 120,000 homes just to accommodate them, not including natural population growth.

One Nation will cut immigration, boost home construction and prioritise Australians first—no more immigrants until every Australian can afford a roof over their head. To assist first home buyers, One Nation proposes 5% fixed-rate mortgages that would save over $800 per month.

It’s time to put Australians first and ensure everyday Australians have a fair shot at home ownership.

Transcript

When will this government actually care about Australians? For most people, the Australian dream of buying a home is dead. This government would rather have people as housing slaves: either debt slaves to the banking cartel, with unaffordable mortgages, or rent slaves, with overseas investment funds like BlackRock and Vanguard as landlords.  

In their motion, the Greens criticise property investors. Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, or, rather, those with housing portfolios shouldn’t throw Senate motions. Greens Senators Faruqi and McKim reportedly each own four properties. Remember Senator Faruqi’s native tree clearing in koala habitat to build luxury rentals in Port Macquarie. Yet the Greens property investors say they’re the enemies of property investors and the saviours of koalas. The old saying seems true: every accusation is actually a confession.  

I’ve got nothing against property investors. In well-balanced housing markets, investors play an important part in housing supply, yet successive governments pushing record immigration destroyed the dream of owning a home in Australia. In 2023 alone, 547,000 immigrants arrived. For arrivals alone, we were short 120,000 homes. That’s not counting the housing shortfall for natural population growth. The extraordinary demand for housing for new arrivals must be turned off. One Nation is the only party that can be trusted to make the tough decisions on cutting immigration to reduce housing demand, getting more houses built and putting Australians first—no more immigrants until Australians can afford a roof over their head. Send some visa holders back to their countries until house construction catches up. Our building codes are distorted with overly complicated nonsense to comply with the United Nations and World Economic Forum demands. That stops our tradies building more houses. We’ll get rid of it. We’ll bring the banking cartel into line.  

For first home buyers, One Nation’s five per cent fixed mortgages will be more than $800 a month cheaper. To get people into their own homes, put Australians first.  

The woke and under-fire boss of Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) has installed 58 electric vehicle chargers at Parliament House, using $2.5 million of your money. This is despite only 2.8% of the vehicles in Canberra (the wokest city in Australia) being able to use the chargers.

I find it concerning that I needed to remind DPS Secretary, Rob Stefanic, that the money he’s using for these chargers belong to Australian taxpayers, not a pot of money that replenishes magically. His “out of touch” attitude regarding the chargers he’s installing and the origin of the funds is troubling.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Let’s move on to electric vehicle chargers. I’d like to return to the 58 electric vehicle chargers—that’s 58—that you’ve installed, Mr Stefanic, at Parliament House. Can I confirm you haven’t installed any petrol or diesel pumps? 

Mr Stefanic: No, we have not. 

Senator Roberts: So 2.8 per cent of the vehicles registered in Canberra are electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids. It seems to be a weird policy priority to spend $2.5 million on installation of EV chargers. Do you think your policy is out of touch with the reality of the types of vehicles that are in use in the ACT and Canberra? 

Mr Stefanic: Sometimes planning for a future state is important, and, given the take-up of electric vehicles within the country and particularly the rate of take-up within the ACT, I would have thought it to be prudent planning. 

Senator Roberts: What is the mix of seven-kilowatt and 22-kilowatt chargers? How many of each are installed? 

Mr Stefanic: I’d have to take that on notice. I’m not across the technical aspects of it. 

Senator Roberts: Thank you. As to question on notice 114, your cashflow statement is anticipating $160,000 in employee expenses and nearly $170,000 in the following year. Why do Australian taxpayers need to pay $330,000 in employee wages over the next two years for these EV chargers? 

Mr Stefanic: The business case for the chargers is a cost-recover over the long term. So, while it is an initial investment of Commonwealth funds, there is a recovery anticipated as part of that. 

Senator Roberts: So Commonwealth funds come from taxpayers, or loans. 

Mr Stefanic: They come from consolidated revenue, yes. 

Senator Roberts: Which comes from taxpayers. It’s a bit of a concern that it seems to be awkward to actually admit that it comes from taxpayers. Charging lithium batteries is a fire safety risk. Who did the assessment of the fire safety risk and mitigation for these chargers? Can you please provide those details on notice. 

Mr Stefanic: I know that all the appropriate engineering approvals were obtained, but I can get that detail for you on notice. 

Senator Roberts: I’d like to know who did the assessment in particular of the fire safety risk and mitigation. What is the plan if a charging station charging vehicles catches fire? Firefighters are telling us, all over the world, that they are nearly impossible to extinguish. 

Mr Stefanic: I believe all relevant risks were considered during the engineering assessment of the charging facility, but otherwise I’d have to take the detail of that question on notice. 

Senator Roberts: Yes, please. Are you introducing a fire risk by installing 58 of these chargers into Parliament House, given the difficulties of putting out lithium fires? Perhaps take it on notice. 

Mr Stefanic: Yes, I will take that on notice. 

Senator Roberts: Given that only 2.8 per cent of the vehicles in Canberra can use these chargers, I think it is completely out of touch to spend $2½ million of taxpayers’ money on 58 of them at Parliament House. There are far more important things to be spending money on. 

Here are some bold ideas you won’t hear from anyone but One Nation.

1. Ensure cheap power by turning on coal-fired stations, building more, and ending solar and wind subsidies.

2. Stop inflation by halting excessive money printing.  

3. Guarantee cheaper housing and rents, prioritising young Australians.

4. Secure cheaper groceries by supporting farmers and building dams.

And lastly, use our natural resources for Australians first.

One Nation is committed to putting Australians first and freeing them from unnecessary restrictions.

Transcript

Here are things you won’t hear from anyone in the budget, except for One Nation because we’ve got the guts to say what you’re thinking. 

Firstly, guarantee cheap power—turn the coal fired power stations back on, build more coal fired power stations, and remove solar and wind subsidies. It’s the only thing that can save us right now. Secondly, stop inflation. Stop quantitative easing—printing excess money. A trillion dollars was concocted during the COVID response, which is a major cause of the inflation we’re still fighting today. Thirdly, we’ll guarantee cheaper houses, cheaper rents and get young people into their first home. Don’t just cut net overseas migration: start deporting. Prior to COVID, there were 1.9 million visa holders who needed housing and who were fighting Australians for a roof over their heads. That has increased to 2.3 million today, plus 400,000 tourists and others. Ten per cent of our population is on visas and needs extra housing. We will ban foreigners from buying Australian property. They’re currently snapping up nearly one in 10 new Aussie homes. 

Fourthly, get cheaper groceries—build dams and help farmers produce tonnes of fresh, healthy produce for Australians. Give farmers water and the right to use their land, and we’ll never have to worry about grocery bills again. Fifth, use all of our natural resources we have right here for Australians first. There’s no need to become a green superpower, and we never will. We’re already an oil, gas, coal and uranium superpower. The government won’t do this because some foreign, unelected organisation in Zurich or New York will claim that we’re not complying with our international obligations. 

Governments on both sides have forgotten that their first obligation is to Australians and no-one else. One Nation knows this. We’ll put our trust in Australia’s people and release them from the nanny state that tells them everything they can and can’t do, which will enable people to abound and flourish. That’s our promise of what would be a One Nation budget. We will always remind members of parliament to put Australians first. 

Big corporate companies, governments and activists are part of a movement to make Australians feel guilty, instead of proud of the Australian Flag. 

The movement tries to make us all feel guilty about celebrating our country, its culture and rich resources. It targets the colour of our skin. 

It’s a deceptive movement that cherry picks facts to tell Australia that the entire system is racist and leaves out the achievements we’ve all made together. 

Aboriginal people were certainly here first. Like anyone who lives on the land, Aboriginals have connection to it. Atrocities were committed, yet it’s important to point out that people living today are not responsible for the atrocities. 

Equally, the people who arrived here since 1770 began evolving the society we live in today. We severed ties with the colonial British Empire. We, the Australian people, voted in the 1967 referendum to include Aboriginal Australians. 

Australians brought together everyone as one to all be counted as Australian, and fixed the early mistake of dividing Australia. 

Together we developed into a society that cares, listening to the needs of remote communities to the point that we collectively spend up to $30 billion a year trying to help less than 4% of the population. 

Naysayers seeking to trigger and perpetuate guilt conveniently skipped over the advances in medicine, literature, infrastructure, natural conservation and general welfare we’ve made together over centuries. 

Australia is not perfect. Many people know I have severe criticisms about the changed direction in which our country is heading recently under globalist policies.  

The worst thing we can do is forget how far we’ve come together and how much more we can achieve together if we resist the nasty politics of division.  

I want some things fixed, yet I’m very proud of our country. I remain hopeful of what every Australian can achieve when we work together, regardless of skin colour, regardless of ancestry.

We are one community, we have one flag, we are One Nation.

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.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.