Posts

Clean Energy Regulation: Questions on Costs and Market Impact

,

The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.

I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?

Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?

Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?

Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.

Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?

Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?

Mr Binning: We have around 400.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?

CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.

Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.

Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?

Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.

Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?

Mr Binning: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.

Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.

Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?

Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—

Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.

Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.

Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.

Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?

Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?

Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.

CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.

Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.

Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s
generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—

Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?

Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.

Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.

Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.

/0 Comments/by

Net Zero is Driving Unaffordable Grocery and Food Prices

, ,

Why are grocery prices still going up when we have better technology and more efficient farms than ever before?

The answer is that the cost of energy is making your grocery bills more expensive. Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton are equally committed to making electricity more expensive and increasing the price of food.

One Nation is the only party that will end net-zero policies to return cheap power and cheaper groceries to Australians.

Transcript

Yesterday, Richard Forbes of Independent Food Distributors Australia told the Australian newspaper: 

As far as I am concerned, the government’s energy policy has and continues to increase the price of food. 

Employers supplying food to major supermarkets and thousands of cafes, restaurants and pubs around the country have launched a revolt against the government’s energy policies, urging more gas and coal-fired power to bring down electricity prices. 

The managing director of Western Australia’s largest independent food distributor said his company’s electricity bill had doubled in the past three years. This energy policy driving up food prices is called net zero. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton are completely committed to the net zero policies that are driving up the price of your groceries. As part of that net zero policy, coal and gas generators are told to turn off completely whenever wind and solar decide to turn on, which is unpredictable. 

The problem is coal-fired power stations are what’s called base-load power; they’re designed to run constantly, not to flick on and off like they’re being forced to now. That abuse leads to higher maintenance costs and, in the worst case, power stations failing, blowing up. Even with this unsustainable switching-on-and-off situation, the coal burnt in a coal-fired power station costs just $21 a megawatt hour. This financial year, solar and wind capital South Australia’s average power price has been $200 a megawatt hour, a bit under 10 times higher than a coal station’s fuel costs. 

Instead of making coal stations flick on and off completely, run them continuously to provide base-load power, and electricity will instantly get cheaper and more reliable. Wind and solar can top up the rest—when they work—and households can keep using their own solar power—simple. Only One Nation will bring down power prices down and grocery bills to put more money in your pocket. 

/3 Comments/by

One Nation’s View of “The Future Made in Australia” Bill 2024

,

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of legislation that One Nation would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam. This Bill continues wasteful spending, now with a hint of desperation. 

The Bill introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 per kilogram, aiming to meet net zero targets. However, if hydrogen were commercially viable, companies and banks would be investing, but they aren’t. One Nation believes in the profit motive, not subsidies. 

Recent withdrawals from hydrogen projects by companies like ATCO and Shell highlight the unviability of green hydrogen. In contrast, One Nation supports practical projects like the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, which will bring thousands of jobs and $8 billion in private investment. 

The Bill also offers tax incentives for refining critical materials used in renewable energy, costing $7 billion over 11 years. This benefits processors, not taxpayers. One Nation proposes infrastructure projects to support critical minerals development instead. 

Lastly, the Bill changes borrowing rules for Aboriginal communities without actually specifying the new rules, creating uncertainty and potential debt for unviable projects. One Nation cannot support this lack of transparency. 

The net zero transition is destroying Australia with absolutely no benefit to the natural environment.  

It’s time we returned to reliable coal and gas fired power stations.  This measure will put more money back in Australians pockets and end further suffering. 

Transcript

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation.  

The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen was commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren’t. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn’t happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It’s called the profit motive.  

Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years, using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity. 

Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It’s marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it’s using it’s shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they’re legislated.  

There’s nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it’s a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation.  

Let’s move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries, used to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it, but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We’re tossing money at these people, and it’s wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. ‘What’s a billion here or there?’ says the government. 

The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there’s no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people’s money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation’s proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs. 

Let’s move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It’s even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don’t, and yet you’re going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either. 

In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won’t touch. 

Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as ‘Minister for Blackouts’, Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let’s see what the government does intend.  

The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It’s costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It’s now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering. 

I’m now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living. 

Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you’re going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people’s pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order: 

The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution … 

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero. 

I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It’s almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn’t tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia. 

Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians’ pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money. 

/by

One Nation Opposes the Use of Bovaer to Reduce Methane Emissions

BOVAER is a chemical additive that has been approved in Australia for feeding ruminants, including cows.

Bovaer is a trade name. The active substance is 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), which is diluted in propylene glycol and adsorbed on silicic acid. The chemical suppresses methane production by 99% in laboratory trials, but only 45% in field trials, and 28% when used for 12 months. This suggests that either the animals develop resistance to the chemical, or the chemical degrades in storage.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030224005009

3-NOP is not approved for use in organic beef or milk in Australia, so those wishing to avoid the chemical can purchase organic products.

Bovaer itself is harmful if it comes into contact with human skin, and the Product Safety Sheet requires the use of personal protective equipment.

The amount of Bovaer used in cow feeding is very small. If used as directed, the product does not affect the animal and does not appear in meat or milk fat. Additionally, the animal consumes 5% less feed for the same output.

However, food.gov.uk conducted testing at levels above the recommended dose and found that at (double) the dose, effects identified included decreased ovary size. At five times the dose, the chemical WAS found in milk fat. Further research at higher levels was prevented by the premature slaughter of the animal, which is a red flag to One Nation.

Long-term genotoxicity testing concluded there was evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats. However, the makers hired “experts” to contest the result. There has been no attempt to determine the happiness of the animals, i.e. does consuming this chemical cause them any discomfort?

The primary purpose of the product is to reduce methane emissions. However, ruminants have been part of the ecosystem since time began and bovine methane actually helps the environment.

There is no reason to add this chemical to stockfeed, regardless of its safety. This product is nothing more than a fundraiser for climate carpetbaggers to create a billion-dollar industry for themselves where none existed and none is needed.

For these reasons, One Nation opposes the use of Bovaer.

/6 Comments/by

Renewable Energy: Land Use and Cost Concerns

,

Coal-fired power stations and nuclear power stations each have about 40 hectares of footprint, with a very narrow target transmission lines straight to the cities. In contrast, solar and wind installations are scattered and located away from the main cities, taking up enormous amounts of space. Their energy density is very low, requiring a vast amount of land to produce the same power, and they aren’t on consistently. This increases transmission costs and the amount of land that regions must devote to solar, wind, and now batteries, causing significant angst.

Around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar and wind has also increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. For example, look at Germany.

A surface coalmine must pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and if it is rehabilitated properly to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. However, there is no such bond for solar and wind companies to set aside funds for decommissioning their complexes at the end of their life. This needs to change!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Your predecessor said, ‘Australia’s random renewable energy push needs to be overhauled and a nationwide stocktake is required to determine what should be built and where it should go.’ Are you committed to that overall overhaul?

Mr Sheldon: That is an observation or recommendation made by Mr Dyer, and I think that’s been built into the review that Mr Duggan has just been talking about. So all those action plans and so on are designed to
ensure—

Senator ROBERTS: When’s that coming out? I’m sorry, I missed it.

Mr Duggan: The action plan has been agreed by the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council, so that’s now a public document. So we’re in the process now of implementing. The full response to the review was
published on 19 July.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So that’s been included in their recommendations?

Mr Duggan: Yes, that’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer also said, ‘The sort of granular planning required for a once in a generation transformation to secure the nation’s energy supply still had not happened.’ Is that now in the report as well—
granular planning?

Mr Duggan: Yes, this was a recommendation to governments. As you would know, a lot of the detail, the specific planning around land use and specific locations of related transmission, sits with the state governments
and involves a very big input from the local governments. So a lot of the argumentation around that recommendation was to point to some of the best practice that already exists and to encourage that to be taken up
by the other states and territories.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s a lot of pain in the regions now, because they’re bearing the brunt of solar and wind disturbances.

Mr Duggan: What the report highlighted was that, certainly where best practice is not happening, there was an opportunity to improve the way projects are being delivered to the betterment of communities. That’s
absolutely correct.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems like it’s hell for leather, just do whatever you want. And there’s a lot of cash flying around, which is inducing councils to bypass some of their own ordinances, as we understand it.

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, the government inherited the last government’s framework and commissioned Mr Dyer to do this report because it’s in the interests of rural and regional communities and of an
effective rollout of generation and transmission capability that we improve the governance and consultation processes and all of the things that are included in Mr Dyer’s report. That’s what’s motivated the government to commission this report. On those nine recommendations, I think Mr Duggan said three of them are directed towards the Commonwealth, because there are multiple participants in this process, but they have, essentially, all been adopted. It’s our job now to operationalise that effectively in a way that addresses, I think, many of the issues that you raise.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that, Minister. Are you aware that a coal-fired power station and a nuclear power station have about 40 hectares of footprint, and that’s it, and a very narrow target transmission
corridor straight to the main users, which are the cities and the provincial cities? Solar and wind are scattered and away from the main cities and they take up enormous room. Their energy density is very low, which means that you need an enormous amount of land to produce the same power. And even then you can’t produce it regularly. So that increases transmission costs, and the amount of land the regions are devoting to solar, wind and transmission, and also now to batteries. It’s causing a lot of angst. Are you aware of that?

Senator Ayres: I’m certainly aware, on one hand, that, with the processes for approval and consultation with these projects, we were operating with the last government’s processes, and we are working to improve those. I’m also aware that you’re trying to make a broader point, I guess, about the merit or otherwise of the approach that is being taken by the government and the states and Commonwealth in terms of building an energy system for the future. I appreciate that you’re not one of the coalition MPs here, but I think it’s hard to make an argument about community consultation on one hand, and then do a press release that says: ‘We’re going to turn up with seven nuclear reactors in your neighbourhood, whether you like it or not. We’re not going to tell you how much they cost, or how many of them we’re going to build—but, Muswellbrook, here you go, whether you like it or not, a nuclear reactor’—

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. A coal-fired power station would be fine—

Senator Ayres: That will be very expensive. What we know, and I think the evidence that you’ve heard today shows—and I understand you don’t agree with it; I think you’ve demonstrated over time that you are impervious to the facts and evidence that are provided by the agencies—

Senator ROBERTS: I do the contrary, Minister. I love evidence.

Senator Ayres: That’s your right, I understand that. But the shift to the cheapest form of energy is what the government is interested in here. Claims are made—some of them very wild claims, and some of them
somewhere between misinformation and disinformation—about the scale of land that is required for these projects. I understand that people make those claims and some people retweet them and repost them—pretty
irresponsible in my view. But we have commissioned the Dyer report for a reason; that is, to improve the processes. The minister believes, and the government believes, that adopting those, together with the appointment of Mr Mahar and other steps that the government is undertaking, will improve the effectiveness of the consultation process as we get on with one of the most important nation building things that government can do, and that is to deliver the lowest cost, most reliable energy system as we upgrade our energy system so that we can have manufacturing jobs and low cost, reliable, renewable energy and storage for households and business into the future. It’s a decades-long pathway and we’re determined to do it in the most efficient way possible for the Australian people.

Senator ROBERTS: There are two things I would remind you of, Minister. One is that the energy density drives the cost, and physics does not change the very low energy density of solar and wind, whereas coal and
especially nuclear are very high energy density. The second thing is that, everywhere around the world, every country that has increased the proportion of solar wind, has increased the cost of electricity for consumers and destroyed their manufacturing base. Have a look at Germany. Something that Mr Dyer was very passionate about was rehabilitation bonds, so that these wind and solar companies have put money away for decommissioning the complexes at the end of life. A surface coalmine has to pay a bond for every hectare uncovered each year, and then, at the end of the life of the mine, if it’s rehabilitated properly, to a superior standard than it was originally, they get their money back. There is no bond for solar and wind. What work have you done on putting reforms to government that would ensure there is money put away to clean up the environment, not just leave a toxic wasteland? Specifically, what have you done with the government?

Mr Sheldon: Can I just clarify that question? Is it: what work has the AEIC done to raise that issue with government?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Sheldon: I think Mr Dyer raised that. It was in his annual report in 2022 that he raised this issue about performance bonds in relation to wind farms in particular.

Senator ROBERTS: And what work has been done in following up?

Mr Sheldon: It’s certainly one of those issues that does get raised with us. It’s not in the top 10 or so issues that are raised with us in the complaints that we receive. We’re like a small ombudsman. We receive complaints. It’s an issue that does get raised. During the time that I’ve been in the role, from 2 April this year, it has been raised a few times, but it’s certainly not the top issue. In terms of what is happening, I think since 2022, when Mr Dyer raised the issue, what I’ve observed in the time that I’ve been in the role is that, in different jurisdictions, there’s certainly work done to increase transparency. One of our roles, I guess, in the AEIC is to promote more transparency around these projects.

Senator ROBERTS: What, specifically, have you done?

Mr Sheldon: It’s not our role to implement policy. We’ve identified issues and we certainly monitor them. New South Wales, for example, has recently worked on its renewable energy plan, which includes standard
clauses and so on around the landholders in relation to this sort of issue. We’re monitoring that, but we don’t have responsibility for implementing it, as a complaint handling body. If we identify good examples, we’ll identify them as part of our role.

Senator ROBERTS: So what are you doing, specifically, to make sure that the bonds come into place?

Mr Sheldon: We don’t have a role to implement putting that in place. It’s certainly something we can raise as an issue. We have a range of mechanisms to do that. One of them is the annual report, which, obviously, comes out every year, on a calendar year basis. And part of what’s always been appended to that annual report is a series of observations that have really been built on the observations of the commissioner over many years—which is where the observation was made in 2022. That’s a place where we can raise that with officials that do have policy responsibility for these sorts of matters. That’s generally how we do it. We also have a website where we would raise things. We have reporting obligations to the minister. So, if we identify an issue, we obviously include that in our observations or reports.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, can I ask if you have much more to go? We’re running terribly behind.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to make a comment to the minister. Minister, this is a comment, but there’s no reflection on the people at the table with you right now, because they’re interim—well, you’re not in interim,
but Mr Dyer was a thorough professional—

Senator Ayres: We’re all interim in one sense or another, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Dyer was a thorough professional, who did his job extremely well. We happily endorsed him in Senate estimates. He was effectively an ombudsman, and a very good one.

/1 Comment/by

Alphabet Soup Agencies: Are Taxpayers Getting Value for Money?

,

The climate division at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is just another part of the alphabet soup of agencies that are dedicated to bringing in net zero goals.

Although no one at the desk wanted to tell me their salaries, the fewer than ten senior executives in the department rake in $4.5 million a year. Secretary David Fredericks, who responded to my question, is on a total package of $907,000 a year. 

Are you getting value for money?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: As simply as possible and as specifically as possible, what do the people responsible for outcome 1 at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water do? What is your basic
accountability, especially in regard to energy?

Mr Fredericks: In many ways, I can’t do any better than our corporate documents.

Senator ROBERTS: How long is that?

Mr Fredericks: Very short. It’s the outcome that we are held to account for by the parliament and ultimately by the ANAO, which is to support the transition of Australia’s economy to net zero emissions by 2050; transition energy to support net zero while maintaining security, reliability and affordability; support actions to promote adaptation and strengthen resilience of Australia’s economy, society and environment; and take a leadership role internationally in responding to climate change.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That’s exactly what I was after. What is the total salary package of everyone at the executive?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the corporate questions were at 9 o’clock this morning. We’ve released the corporate people.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put these on notice.

/by

Australia’s $8 Billion Climate Commitment

,

COP29 has recently concluded. As part of the agreement, Australia has committed $8 billion towards “climate change” measures in developing countries, including India. I asked the Minister, after 29 years of action to “fight climate change,” how much world temperatures had dropped. The answer was predictable waffle. The truth is, “climate change measures” are not designed to succeed; they can’t—humans can’t control the climate. These measures are designed to transfer wealth from everyday citizens to the predatory billionaires behind this scam.

Watch as the Minister waffles on, unable to answer my simple questions about this appalling waste of taxpayers’ money.

Transcripts

Question Time

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister, and is regarding the United Nations Conference of the Parties, COP29. Minister, COP29 marks 29 years of climate action. After 29 years, it must be starting to work. As a result of the measures implemented via COP agreements, how much have world temperatures been reduced? 

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:28): We should acknowledge that, in asking this question, Senator Roberts of course starts from the premise that climate change is not real, is not caused by humans and is not a problem that requires us to deal with it in any way. These are the positions he has put repeatedly— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, please go ahead. 

Senator Roberts: I don’t need a dissertation on myself; I’m asking about temperatures. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll listen to the minister’s answers, but she has been answering your question. 

Senator McALLISTER: As I was saying, the starting point for Senator Roberts’s question, as he has made very clear over his long period in this place, is that he does not believe in the science of climate change, he does not believe that that science has been demonstrated and he does not believe that there needs to be— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson. 

Senator Hanson: I question Senator McAllister’s response— 

The PRESIDENT: Is it a point of order? 

Senator Hanson: Yes, it is a point of order. She’s repudiating Senator Roberts’s character in her response— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, that is a debating point. Please resume your seat. 

Senator McALLISTER: It’s passing strange to be asked about the effectiveness of climate action because I don’t believe that Senator Roberts actually wishes it to be successful. 

However, I will say this. At COP28, the information that delegates received was that the projections had been for a four-degree increase in temperature and that that had been reduced to three degrees based on the actions that had been taken by states to date. Three-degree average global warming is actually a very troubling number. It offers very disturbing consequences for many Australians, including Australians in your home state, Senator Roberts. There is a heatwave warning in place today for the peninsula region of Queensland, and there are flooding warnings in Queensland. All of the advice before us suggests that the extreme weather events that Queenslanders are exposed to are only going to increase as a consequence of a warming climate. 

It is in Australia’s interests for there to be effective global action to contain warming. That’s why we are— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

The minister seems unaware that Queensland had bigger floods in the 19th century. How many people did the Australian government send to UN’s COP29? For clarity—just those your government paid for and the cost of that all up, please, including travel, accommodation, wages and expenses. 

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:31): As I think the senator will know from when previous questions of this kind have been asked at estimates, the complete costs associated with travel to events such as these, multilateral forums, generally are not available until sometime after the travel has been completed. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

The communique from COP29, released overnight, announced that developed nations will ramp up annual payments to be paying $300 billion annually by 2035, supposedly to meet the costs of transitioning developing nations, including India, with payment being a combination of public and private money, loans and grants. Media reports suggest Australia’s share is $8 billion. I don’t see a government statement to that effect. Minister, how much taxpayer money will be sent overseas as grants to discharge our obligation under the agreement made at COP29? 

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities) (14:32): Australia does welcome the outcome at COP29, in Baku, to agree a new finance goal to support developing countries. This goal was incredibly hard fought. It is not everything that everyone wanted. In fact, people wanted a range of outcomes, and there was, as there always is in such forums, a compromise. But it is an important step to support emissions reduction and development goals around the world. 

We are proud be to be back as a constructive actor on the world stage. It safeguards our national security. Our goal is to accelerate our transformation— 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Order! Order! 

Senator Canavan interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Canavan, I’ve called order three times. I’ve called you to order, and you’ve completely ignored me. Your interjections have completely drowned out the minister. Listen in silence, or I invite you to leave the chamber. Minister McAllister, please continue. 

Senator McALLISTER: As I’ve frequently said to Senator Roberts and others in this chamber, it is in our interests as a nation for there to be effective action to limit global warming. I will say we are now cleaning up the mess left that was left by 10 years of the Liberals and Nationals making a mockery of our— (Time expired) 

Take Note

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to COP29. 

Three-nil! I asked three questions and got nil specific answers. For 29 years, the United Nations has convened a conference of parties on climate change to counter the manufactured threat of global warming, climate change, climate disruption, global boiling, net zero and many other rebrandings. For 29 years, taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this pointless to solve a fake problem and failed to change world temperatures. Many in this chamber think that giving money to the United Nations will enable us to affect world temperatures, yet we can’t because temperatures are the result of factors not in our control. 

COP29 focused heavily on finance. Rich countries, which are overwhelmingly blamed for natural climate variation, agreed in 2009 to ramp up annual payments to provide $100 billion a year in 2020 to developing countries. That pledge was met in 2022—two years past the deadline. At Baku, the United Nations came up with a new number, meaning more Australian taxpayer money would be spent overseas to fight this concocted problem. The new deal agreed on yesterday requires wealthy countries, including the US, European nations and Australia, to ramp up payments to $300 billion annually in 2035. So I asked the minister: what’s Australia’s share? The minister didn’t know. If we paid based on the UN formula, Australia would be paying $6 billion every year—money sent overseas and never seen again, reducing Australia’s gross domestic product and with that the standard of living for all Australians. Worse, the agreement refers to a wider ambition to increase payments to developing nations up to $1.3 trillion—annually, I believe. Developing nations include China, India, Egypt—all modern, vibrant economies. Worse, these nations have no formal obligation to cut their output of carbon dioxide gas or to provide financial help to poorer countries. One Nation will withdraw from the UN climate agencies and UN imposts that are really income redistribution, communism disguised as climatism. One Nation will stop the UN theft. 

Question agreed to. 

/7 Comments/by

Treasury Dodges Coal Price Questions

,

Treasury officials dodge basic questions about Australian power station coal prices while claiming they “monitor” them for inflation forecasts. Despite promising to get back to me on notice, the officials refused to provide how much coal for generating electricity costs.

Australian coal prices for our power stations remain stable under long-term contracts, yet Treasury keeps pushing the narrative of high international prices to justify soaring electricity costs. Why hide the real numbers? Because cheap domestic coal exposes the true cost of the renewable energy transition to Australian families.

Time for transparency, Australian families deserve to know the real cost of their electricity and it’s not because of Ukraine.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This is for the Treasury, on coal pricing. The Treasurer said in March, regarding Australian power station coal prices, that thermal coal burned in power stations in Australia was ‘more or less tracking’, according to Treasury’s December forecast, to be down about a third from a year ago. Do you track the price of thermal coal burned in power stations in Australia?  

Mr Yeaman: We look at overall market movements in coal prices both for export and for generation, yes, as part of our CPI forecast.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you get that information on thermal coal prices in Australia for domestic use?

Dr Heath: In tracking coal prices on a regular basis, the most publicly available coal prices tend to be shipped coal. So if you’re looking—  

Senator ROBERTS: Exported coal?  

Dr Heath: Exported coal—that’s what is publicly available. The arrangements that individual coal-fired power plants have to access their coal means that the prices they pay could be quite different to those public prices. That’s not publicly available information, so we would have to basically go directly to the coal-fired power stations to find that information.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand the local price is much lower because they’re locked into long-term contracts. So it’s a vague process. When you’re talking about power stations, is it only power stations that buy their coal or is it also the power stations that are at the mine mouth—where it just goes straight from the mine into the power station?  

Dr Heath: I think that’s getting to a level of detail that I don’t have.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice, please? 

Dr Heath: We can take that on notice, but I’m not sure— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know how you get that price—or, if you don’t get that price, that’s fine.  

Mr Yeaman: I am aware that we have in the past. Our colleagues at the department of climate change and also the department of industry, along with our colleagues at the Australian Energy Market Operator, look at prices by facility, and I think that does include those that get coal directly from the mine.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you get that information from those other agencies?  

Mr Yeaman: I’m not sure how systematised that is, but I’m aware we have in the past drawn information from those sources.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the latest figure you have for the price of thermal coal burned in Australian power stations?  

Mr Yeaman: If it’s that specific a question, I’ll take it on notice, if that’s okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware that the CSIRO uses a coal price of $11.30 a gigajoule in its GenCost studies to say that wind and solar are cheaper than coal?  

Mr Yeaman: We generally look at the GenCost report, but, for our purposes, we don’t tend to go down to that level of detail around their assumptions.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware that CSIRO uses the coal price of $11.30 a gigajoule in GenCost?  

Mr Yeaman: I haven’t been aware of that and I’m not sure that my colleagues would be.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I can accept that. Are you able to provide the aggregate figures for coal prices over the last five years, please?  

Mr Yeaman: We can certainly have a look and see what we can provide. 

Questions on Notice | June 2024

A0010_Economics_2024-06-03_BudgetestimatesDownload
A0011_Economics_2024-06-03_BudgetestimatesDownload
/by

Net Zero Hypocrisy: Nullarbor’s Fragile Ecosystem at Risk

,

Net zero is vandalising our natural environment. The latest proposal will cover two million hectares of fragile ecosystem along the Nullarbor Plain with industrial wind and solar. There was a time when environmentalists would have thrown themselves in front of the bulldozers; now they are driving the bulldozers!  Australia has had enough of this hypocrisy and obscene, dishonest devastation.

Industrial solar and wind subsidies will be redirected to fund the removal and remediation of wind, solar, and transmission lines, which is inevitable once the climate profiteers realise the jig is up and shoot through, leaving their rusting industrial waste to dump toxic chemicals into the landscape.

A One Nation government will cancel the net zero transition and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. If people in cities want solar and wind, let them have it. We would retrofit coal-fired power stations with capture and conversion devices, turning nature’s trace gas—essential to all life, carbon dioxide—into fertiliser, ethanol, and AdBlue, products that will grow Australia.

Climate carpetbaggers are ripping Australia off, and it has to stop.

Transcript

The net zero transition is not driven in accordance with science and commonsense nor is it the truth. Its ideologically driven and uses cherry-picked numbers. It cancels academics who disagree with it, enabling a parasitic and a dishonest solar and wind lobby to transfer hundreds of billion dollars from everyday Australians into the lobbyists” pockets. Meanwhile, communist China pretends it is inviting net zero while expanding coal-fired power plants, growing wealth on the back of cheap power. This is taking investment, investment and wealth from everyday Australians. Net zero will cost Australia to 2050 around $1.5 trillion, after which the parasites will continue the process of replacing short-lived weather-dependent generation. 

Net zero is vandalising our natural environment. The latest proposal will cover two million hectares of fragile ecosystem along the Nullarbor Plain with industrial wind and solar. There was a time when environmentalists would have thrown themselves in front of the bulldozers; now they are driving the bulldozers! Australia has had enough of this hypocrisy and obscene, dishonest devastation. A One Nation government will cancel the net zero transition and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. If people in cities want solar and wind, let them have it. We would retrofit coal-fired power stations with capture and conversion devices, turning nature’s trace gas—essential to all life, carbon dioxide—into fertiliser, ethanol and AdBlue, products that will grow Australia. 

Industrial solar and wind subsidies will be redirected to fund the removal and remediation of wind, solar and transmission lines, which is inevitable once the climate profiteers realise the jig is up and shoot through, leaving their broken monstrosities behind. One Nation will close down the department of climate change and the related web of agencies that funnel taxpayer money into a web of foreign corporations, parasitic Australian billionaires, compliant academia, government departments and agencies—dishonest government departments. One Nation offers Australia a clear choice: vote for the Liberal-Labor-Greens-Teals uniparty and continue our descent into poverty, or vote One Nation and restore the economic powerhouse that Australia once was.  

/4 Comments/by

Australians Deserves Better: Use Our Resources for a Prosperous Future

,

Australia can easily be the richest country on earth with the resources we have. Instead, we’re being told to turn off air-cons and dishwashers because there’s not enough electricity. This is only possible because the people in charge hate you. There’s no other explanation for a country that sits on thousands of years of energy supply to be in the situation Australia is.

One Nation will put Australians first, and will fight for a wealthy, prosperous Australia.

Transcript

The Greens are continuing their war on natural gas, their war on humanity. Gas keeps the lights on when their wind turbines and solar panels aren’t working, and that’s often. This afternoon, New South Wales is facing blackouts, as wind and solar supplied less than a quarter of energy needs. They’re facing blackouts! 

With the abundance of coal, oil and natural gas under our feet, Australia is an energy superpower. Hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—are the energy miracles, the human development miracles, the human progress miracles. Australia is among the top three gas exporters and the top two coal exporters. We are the largest exporter of energy in the world. Now, though, Australia is facing blackouts and energy rationing like we’re a Third World country. Thank you! 

The New South Wales government has asked households to turn off their air-conditioners, pull the blinds down, turn off the dishwashers and turn off the lights this afternoon. Third World—thank you! Next they’ll probably ask everyone to just curl up in the fetal position on the floor. The anti-human greenies are winning. Coal is being shut down, as they want, and this is the result: east coast Australians suffer. You’re not going to believe the Greens’ brilliant solution to this. Just wait for it. They want to ban gas. Your gas stovetop and hot-water heater are going to be forcibly converted to electric, and you’ll be banned from turning them on when wind and solar don’t give the grid enough power. You can’t make this up! 

Think about this: electricity prices are at record highs thanks to solar and wind. They’re three times what they used to be—trebled. Now we’re having less electricity, because we’re relying on solar and wind more, and we’re having increased demand, because we’re switching from gas to electricity. What will that do to prices? You can’t make this up. I guess you don’t need to turn your dishwasher on anyway, if you can’t turn on your electric cooktop to cook dinner. This is the green dream: no gas, no light, no cooking, no red meat, no fun. 

It’s the hypocrisy that’s the worst part, though. The Greens want to ban us using coal here, yet it’s perfectly fine to ship coal over to China. China uses that coal to make wind turbines and solar panels, and our dopey government buys them back off China. We subsidise the Chinese to do it. We subsidise the Chinese to install them and we subsidise the Chinese and other parasitic billionaires and corporations to run them. Who pays for those subsidies? The people who use electricity do. The Greens are fine with that. Buying coal products from China—solar and wind turbines—is fine, but using coal here is not. One Nation says: unleash the resources we have in our country for the benefit of all Australian people. Talk to Queenslanders about the services and infrastructure being built from coal royalties. 

China gives token signals about solar and wind, while using coal, nuclear and hydro. China produces 4.5 billion tonnes of coal a year, heading for five billion. They’re the world’s largest producer by a long way. Australia produces 560 million tonnes, and a lot of our coal is exported. Some of it goes to China, because they can’t get enough with their 4.5 billion. India produces around 1.4 billion tonnes of coal—three times what we produce—and buys more from Australia. Why? I’ll tell you why. It’s because they want what we have: a developed nation, with people living longer, safer, easier, more secure, more prosperous and more comfortable lives. They know the secret to these is affordable hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas. Britain started its climb to development using coal. America continued using coal and added the benefit of using oil and gas. High energy density fuels released us from using animals as beasts of burden, stopped us using slaves and reduced exposure to harsh work conditions and work environments. 

Why are hydrocarbon fuels—so powerful, so effective and lifting us to higher standards of living—repeatedly proven around the world? I’ll tell you why: high energy density, which lowers unit energy costs—more energy, lower costs. That gives us productivity. That’s why coal, oil and natural gas are so important. The largest component of manufacturing costs today is electricity. We are now uncompetitive because our electricity costs are amongst the highest. That hurts jobs. The Greens are antijobs, antidevelopment, anticivilisation and antihuman. Only One Nation will end net zero and pull us out of the UN Paris Agreement to restore affordable secure energy. 

/3 Comments/by