Posts
No one trusts politicians because of their lies. PM Albanese promised power bills would drop by $275 by 2025, but they’ve only increased. Despite claims that wind and solar are the cheapest, power bills have never been higher after 20 years of introducing these “renewable” sources.
The Liberal Party’s motion complains about high power bills but ignores the real issue – NET ZERO.
The ONLY elected party that opposes this scam and is committed to lowering power bills is One Nation. Labor, Liberals, and Nationals all support expensive energy. The truth is coal is the cheapest way to run our electricity grid. India and China use our coal, yet Australians can’t. Make it make sense!
One Nation has a plan to permanently reduce power prices by ensuring baseload power stability. This would cut bills immediately by 20% and ultimately by 50%.
Vote One Nation to put more money back in your pocket and end the net zero lies.
Transcript
No-one trusts politicians, because of lies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised Australia that power bills would come down $275 by 2025; 2025 is here and power bills have never been more expensive, and they’re still increasing. Australians are constantly told wind and solar are cheapest. That might be the greatest lie in Australian political history, and that is saying something. Well, after 20 years of connecting all the wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro to the grid, power bills have never been higher.
This is a motion from the Liberal Party, complaining, yet it says nothing about the reason power bills are still so expensive. There is a reason why Queenslanders are worried about running their air conditioning and why local small businesses are closing: that’s net zero. There’s only one elected party in the Senate that opposes the net zero scam, and that’s One Nation. We are the only ones that truly believe in making power bills cheaper. Labor is committed to wind and solar—super expensive. The Liberals the Nationals are committed to wind, solar and nuclear—very expensive. None of them will promise that your power bills will come down under their plan, because they can’t. The truth is that under net zero Australia faces decades of increasing power prices.
There’s a big secret that every politician in this room knows yet won’t say out loud: the absolute cheapest way to run an electricity grid today is coal. Even if you believe in net zero, let’s have a serious look. Australia’s annual carbon dioxide production is 465 million tonnes. India and China together are 16 billion tonnes, 35 times as much. India and China are allowed to buy Australia’s coal and use it, yet Australians can’t use their own coal here in our country. One Nation would get rid of this nonsense. We have a plan to bring down power prices permanently. Right now, baseload power is told to immediately shut down whenever wind and solar unpredictably turn on. Coal is what’s known as baseload power; it’s designed to run effectively and efficiently, 24/7, up to 98 per cent of the time. Turning baseload power off completely in unplanned ways is a huge problem. This leads to much higher prices, increased maintenance costs and, in some cases, power stations breaking down owing to the abuse they weren’t designed for.
The solution is very simple: just guarantee baseload power the minimum time needed to keep spinning. Wind and solar can fill in the rest if they happen to turn on. The most conservative scenario is that this will bring down power prices 20 per cent immediately. Taken to full effect, this could bring power bills down 50 per cent. The Liberals, Labor and the Nationals will never bring down your power bills like this, because they are completely committed to net zero nonsense—net zero lies. One Nation, and only One Nation, will put more money back in your pocket.
During the recent Senate Estimates Session with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), I tabled a graph from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to challenge some of the exaggerated claims we’ve been hearing about extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, and fires.
For years the BOM has always referred me to the IPCC’s work as the authoritative source on climate science. I specifically pointed to the IPCC’s Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, where they provide an analysis of a wide range of weather events. What struck me—and I think it should strike everyone—is that for nearly every major type of extreme weather event, the IPCC finds that there has been no detectable change in frequency or severity over time. This includes river floods, fire weather, tropical cyclones, and coastal floods. The data doesn’t support the claims that these events are becoming more frequent or intense because of “climate change”.
This is important because politicians and the media have often linked these events to human-induced climate change. They claim that floods, fires, and cyclones are somehow the direct result of our carbon dioxide production.
Yet if the IPCC itself, the body these same politicians refer to, says there’s no significant change in these events, why aren’t we calling out this misinformation? Why isn’t BOM calling out this misinformation?
For example, tropical cyclones – the IPCC indicates no change in their frequency or severity, not just for today, but looking ahead through to 2100—even under the worst-case climate scenario. And yet, we continue to hear false claims that “human-induced climate change” is worsening cyclone events. This isn’t true. These events have been part of the natural weather cycle for millennia.
The BOM Director, Dr Johnson’s response acknowledged that the science on cyclones is evolving and confirmed that while there may be fewer cyclones in the future, the ones that do occur may be more intense. Yet again, these claims are based on unsubstantiated projections—not hard data. They’re misinformation!
What’s more, looking at the IPCC’s tables, which break down the evidence of (naturally) varying weather patterns, for nearly every phenomenon—whether it’s precipitation, floods, fire weather, or tropical cyclones—the data simply doesn’t support the idea of dramatic increases due to “human-induced” climate change.
So, why are we still seeing politicians and the media push these claims?
This is not saying to ignore the importance of understanding climate variability, it’s about dealing with the facts – the measured data. The science must guide us, not the political agenda. And if the observed, measured scientific data says these extreme weather events aren’t changing as some claim, we need to stand firm against the misinformation.
Let’s be clear: the data doesn’t support the alarmist rhetoric. We should be calling out the misinformation and ensuring that decisions, policies, regulations and public opinion are based on what the science actually tells us—not on what some want us to believe.
I will continue to hold taxpayer funded agencies and politicians accountable. The truth matters, because, as always, it’s we the people who pay.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table this graph from a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as the basis for some brief questions. I don’t have too many questions today. I’ll start with a little preamble just to set the scene for this. When you get the graph, you’ll see it. I refer to misinformation being put out that cyclones and floods are getting more frequent and severe. Over many years in this committee the BOM has referred me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This might surprise you, but I’m not actually going to argue with you on the merits of the IPCC today, even though they’re a bunch of net zero pushers and are politically driven. I’m going to quote them, because you claim they’re the authority. I’ll take you to Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, table 12.12, by working group 1, on the science of climate, at page 1856. In that table is just about every type of measurable weather event. Some call it extreme weather events.
The blank or white boxes indicate there is no detectable change in frequency or severity of the weather event. I’ll go down the list of what the IPCC itself says—not me. River flood—no change is detected in current period. No change is expected to be detected under the worst case climate scenario by 2050 or even by 2100. Fire weather—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Tropical cyclone—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Coastal flood—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Pluvial—there’s a minor risk in the most extreme, worst-case scenario. If your net zero gods at the IPCC say the data shows weather events are not getting worse because of climate change, why isn’t the Bureau of Meteorology calling out the misinformation peddled by politicians when they state that this flood is because of climate change, this fire is because of climate change or this cyclone is because of climate change? Everyone knows that’s not true. These events have been happening for millennia. Even the scientists in the United Nations that you reference say it’s not so.
Dr Johnson: I might make a couple of preliminary remarks and then ask Dr Braganza, who is online, to join in. I haven’t had a chance to study the page that you’ve just supplied me. I think many times I’ve referred you to the State of the climate report that the bureau produces with the CSIRO every two years, which contains the latest up-to-date information on climate.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve read each of them.
Dr Johnson: I know you read it, and I’d encourage you to refer to it again. Across a range of phenomena we know there are very strong signals already from climate change, in particular around temperature and in particular around drying in the southern, south-east and south-west parts of Australia. Those signals are very strong. The level of confidence in them is very high. Some of the signals for other phenomena, including tropical cyclones, are still evolving and maturing. We have seen an increase in the incidence of high-intensity rainfall. We know as a matter of fact that, as the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture—probably up to 10 or 11 per cent more—than it would otherwise have, and that we’ve seen an increase in high-intensity events. We’ve certainly been on record saying that we expect in Australia it’s likely that there will be a lower number and frequency of cyclones, but they’re likely to be more severe. We’ve been on the record for that for ages. We’ve also been on the record on many occasions—
Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain the basis for that? The UN says it’s not—
Dr Johnson: I’ll come to that. Dr Braganza might want to say something about this in a minute. We’ve also been on the record that, particularly when it comes to individual cyclones and individual rainfall events, it’s very difficult to attribute single events to climate change. We’re talking about longer term global trends here. That’s been our position for some time, and it remains so unless new evidence is entered into existence that would cause us to change our mind. I can only be accountable for the science we do. I can’t be accountable for how those in the public domain choose to talk about it. We certainly provide advice, as we’ve done to this committee many times and in many other fora, about what we’re observing and what our science is telling us is likely to come down the pipeline, and also where we have higher or lower confidence about what is or isn’t coming. They would be my general comments.
Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you correctly—just before we go to Dr Braganza—that cyclones are not becoming more intense?
Dr Johnson: No, I didn’t say that. I said that in our outlooks we think there’s a reasonable likelihood—Dr Braganza will be able to quantify this in more specific detail—that the Australian region is likely to see fewer cyclones, but there’s a likelihood that they’ll be more intense rather than less intense. Dr Braganza is our lead in this space and I’d rather he answer these detailed questions that you might have.
Dr Braganza: For tropical cyclones, the bureau, as Dr Johnson has pointed out, has consistently communicated that we have potentially seen a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones in our region, in particular in the east. We haven’t communicated that we’ve seen any significant change in intensity. Categorising changes in tropical cyclones is difficult. We’re limited to the satellite era. Prior to the satellite era, categorising tropical cyclones for severity and even whether or not they’re a tropical cyclone in the mid latitudes becomes difficult. There are data limitations in trends in tropical cyclones. The bureau has been entirely consistent in how it’s described those and entirely transparent in the data limitations. We have not communicated that we have seen large changes in tropical cyclones that are due to climate change. We don’t communicate around these individual weather events that they were caused by climate change. For tropical cyclones there are multiple aspects to the weather event. When we talk about intensity, we’re often talking about wind speed. Wind speed is just one aspect of a tropical cyclone. There’s also rainfall intensity and there’s storm surge intensity. Due to sea level rise and increased warmth in the atmosphere, we expect increased heavy rainfall and increased storm surge activity from all such events, not just tropical cyclones. There are also events such as east coast lows and others. Observational data is what it is.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to comment on this, because you don’t have the table in front of you, but I’ll just go through chapter 12 and table 12.12, emergence of climate impact drivers in different time periods. That’s with regard to the future. The white colour indicates that there’s no confidence in what they’re saying or what they’re projecting. In terms of already emerged and ‘worst case scenario’ in the future by 2050 and by 2100: mean precipitation, no confidence in the data. No trend has emerged. River flood is the same. Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood is the same. Landslide is the same. Aridity is the same. Hydrological drought is the same. Agricultural and ecological drought is the same. Fire weather is the same. Tropical cyclones is the same. Coastal flood is the same. These are often taken advantage of by politicians and the news media; there’s no evidence for their comments attributing them to climate change caused by humans.
Dr Braganza: I’ll have to take that on notice since I don’t have the material in front of me. Some of the phenomena you’ve called out again in terms of establishing observed trends is limited by sample size. You’re talking not about weather events necessarily; you’re talking about impact events such as the size of a flood following heavy rainfall. There are possibly data limitations involved, but I would have to see exactly the material that you’re referencing.
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.
The claim that solar and wind energy are cheaper because the wind and sun are free is not supoprted by the evidence. In reality, adding more solar and wind to the grid increases electricity costs. The reason is straightforward: while the wind and sun are free, the infrastructure—wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries, 15,000 kilometers of extra transmission lines, and access roads—is very expensive to produce, transport, install, and maintain.
Unlike modern coal or nuclear power plants that last 60 years, solar panels, wind turbines and backup batteries only last 15 years. The $1.9 trillion investment will only get us to 2050. After that, every 15 years, solar and wind infrastructure will need to be replaced at a cost of hundreds of billions more. This madness must end!
One Nation will abolish the federal department of climate change along with all related agencies and programs, including net zero measures and mandates. This will return $30 billion a year to the Treasury, contributing to One Nation’s pledge to reduce $80 billion plus in government spending in our first term. More importantly, it will put billions of dollars back into the pockets of Australians and businesses, making everything more affordable. That’s how we solve the cost-of-living crisis.
It’s time to end the net zero scam. One Nation will make it happen.
Transcript
For the last 30 years Australia has been hostage to the supposedly green movement’s great climate fraud, designed to create an all-purpose excuse to do whatever the government wants—an excuse that’s reusable, recyclable and fungible, not only for the government’s benefit but for the benefit of their donors, stakeholders, bureaucrats and associated carpetbaggers, such as Bill Gates and BlackRock’s Larry Fink. We know who these people are from watching the meetings Prime Minister Albanese has and refuses to explain. Nothing says, ‘I’m doing dodgy deals behind the Australian people’s back,’ like refusing to publish detailed records of what was said and agreed in these meetings. This evening I’ll examine the green climate fraud and make a major One Nation policy announcement.
Let’s start with the war on farming. The climate scam seeks to replace fresh, healthy, field-grown Australian produce from family farms with fake foods in near-urban intensive production facilities—synthetic meat-like products cultured in bioreactors in a process that mimics the way cancer cells grow, with just enough artificial nutrients added to pass as food. Fake meat from plants remains on life support, with 18 ingredients, now including cocoa, and they still can’t make people eat it. Billionaires can’t make money out of conventional farming; they can make money, they think, out of industrial food. Who owns vegetarian meat supplier Beyond Meat? Surprise, surprise: predatory global wealth funds BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street lead their share registry.
Both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California Davis have found the environmental footprint of these Frankenfoods is worse than that of naturally grown pasture raised beef. Bill Gates has declared cattle an existential threat because of their methane farts. Rubbish. Cattle have been on this earth for two million years. Leading methane producer India domesticated cattle 9,000 years ago, and nothing has changed. Another leading methane producer, the United States, had bison for 150,000 years. Three hundred years ago, there were 50 million bison, or buffalo. Now they’re gone, the USA’s 28 million cows are suddenly causing ‘fartageddon’.
There’s no science to justify this nonsense. As the University of California Davis explains:
After about 12 years, the methane—
from cattle—
is converted into carbon dioxide through hydroxyl oxidation. That carbon is the same carbon that was in the air prior to being consumed by an animal. It is recycled carbon.
Cows don’t harm the environment. The methane cycle they perpetuate has been with us for two million years, at times in greater quantities than now.
Plants are more powerful than scientists admit. A recent finding from the US government’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory found:
Scientists Were Wrong: Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought.
Climate scammers refuse to talk about the role of forests and crops, especially hemp, in sequestering carbon. Australia is already carbon neutral. Our forests and crops sequester much more carbon than Australia produces. So let’s stop chopping down trees for industrial wind and solar assess roads and transmission lines, and we can stay that way.
The next lie is that global boiling will kill us. Fact check: it’s false. Between 1998 and 2023, global temperature variation osculated between minus 0.4 degrees and 0.6 degrees as carbon dioxide, CO2, levels in the air rose from 0.036 per cent to 0.042 per cent. Then the Tonga eruption occurred, and temperatures rose by 0.7 degrees centigrade more. I’ll share a link on this topic when I post this speech on my website. It includes some excellent gifs of the fraudulent data tampering and fake temperature stations that have concocted warming where none exists. Japanese data, which is not tampered with, shows no warming in the last 50 years.
Next, carbon dioxide levels do not drive temperature. CO2 levels are a result of temperature changes. There has been a lot of obfuscation on this aspect of climate fraud. I urge anyone who actually believes nature’s trace gas can change the world’s temperatures to look more closely and more carefully. The seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 correlates very well with the temperature, not with the human production of carbon dioxide. CO2 does not drive temperature. Temperature variation drives CO2 levels. It’s the reverse of what the UN is claiming. Global temperature itself is a product of atmospheric pressure, albedo, cloud cover and many other factors.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the UN IPCCC—computer models downplay the factors, especially cyclical variation in solar radiation, which the UN assumes to be minor as compared to changes in CO2. Unvalidated UN IPCCC climate models replace the most powerful modes of heat transfer—conduction, convection, latent heat of evaporation and condensation—with just radiation. In other words, UN IPCCC climate models are rigged to blame CO2 because the real factors are minimised in the construction of these models. No wonder these fake models have already been proven comprehensively wrong.
The next lie is that the Great Barrier Reef is dying. Great Barrier Reef coral cover was the highest on record in 2024. The reef is healthy, yet the scare stories continue. Every time the green scammers claim the Great Barrier Reef is losing coral to scare you, the phones start ringing in north Queensland with tourists cancelling their bookings. Tour operators and the communities they support suffer, staff lose their shifts and their livelihoods, and businesses close, all for a political lie, a fraud. The reef covers 344,000 square kilometres. That’s five times the area of Tasmania. There will always be an area on the reef where an unusually low tide on a hot day causes localised bleaching with still winds. That damage repairs naturally and quickly, as it has for 14,000 years. There will always be a flood dumping fresh water onto the reef and killing the saltwater coral polyps. It’s happening right now in Far North Queensland. So stay tuned for scare stories just about coral bleaching blamed on climate change when the cause will actually be these floods in time for the election.
The next lie is that the sea levels are rising. Since the end of the mini ice age 200 hundred years ago, ocean levels have risen a tiny amount. In 1914, the mean sea level at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour was 1.11 metres. In 2014, 100 years later, it was 1.12 metres—one centimetre, 10 millimetres. That is natural variation.
The next lie is that the polar ice is melting. In Antarctica there will always be an area of unusual warming associated with underground volcanos and hot springs, of which the Earth has thousands. Pressure builds up and they let off heat. They melt the ice above, and then they go dormant again. In 2009, John Kerry predicted, ‘In five years scientists predict we will have the first ice-free arctic summer.’ It didn’t happen, along with the other failed scares. The arctic ice cap floats and moves with natural varying wind and ocean current directions. In fact, after 40 years of unprecedented man-made global boiling, there’s more Antarctic sea ice now than there was 40 years ago.
It’s time to acquit carbon dioxide. The great climate scam is about submitting to the world’s predatory billionaires delivering up our agriculture, transport, energy, manufacturing and industrial base, food, and property rights in the name of saving the planet. In reality, it’s just greed—less for you and more for them—and it’s control.
One Nation saw through this scam in 1996, and we’ve opposed the agenda ever since. We have opposed the $200 billion wasted so far on net zero measures. Bloomberg now puts the cost of completing Australia’s transition to net zero, including the electrification of cars, homes and appliances, at $1.9 trillion. That’s a terrifying figure. The few hundred billion dollars spent so far have added so much to our electricity costs that bills are doubling or tripling. The pain is only just starting.
The lie that solar and wind are cheaper because the wind and sun are free is not supported with evidence. To the contrary—the more solar and wind are added to the grid, the dearer our electricity becomes. The reason is simple. While the wind and sun are free, wind turbines, solar panels, back-up batteries, 15,000 kilometres of extra transmission lines and access roads are very expensive to make, transport, install and maintain. While a modern coal or nuclear power plant lasts 60 years, solar panels, wind turbines and back-up batteries only last 15. The $1.9 trillion will only get us to 2050. After that, every 15 years, solar and wind will need to be replaced at a cost of hundreds of billions more.
Enough of this madness, this fraud. If elected, One Nation will abolish the federal department of climate change, all their related agencies and programs, including all net zero measures and mandates. This will return $30 billion a year to the Treasury, forming part of One Nation’s pledge to reduce $80 billion in government spending in our first term. More importantly, it will return billions of dollars a year into the pockets of homeowners and businesses, making everything you buy cheaper and more affordable. That’s how to solve the cost-of-living crisis. It’s time to end the net zero scam. One Nation will end the net zero scam.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Malcolm’s Fight
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am