Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the Albanese Government have created the worst economic conditions in Australia in 30 years. In an attempt to shift the blame for this mess, the Treasurer has unfairly targeted Reserve Bank Governor, Michelle Bullock. The reality is that the RBA has increased interest rates in response to the government’s policies. While the Treasurer could order the Reserve Bank to lower interest rates, the Government knows that doing this would make Australia’s economy worse. So instead, they trade insults.
It’s time for Treasurer Chalmers to stop the bullying and focus on solutions. Infrastructure is the key to overcoming this economic disaster.
In this speech, I outline how One Nation plans to bring down inflation and reduce interest rates.
Transcript
In the last few days Australians have witnessed an unedifying sight: the Treasurer blaming the Reserve Bank for policy outcomes that are firmly the government’s fault. When Treasurer Chalmers was rightly criticised for his misbehaviour the Labor Party rallied the troops, dusting off Labor Party artefact Wayne Swan to defend the Treasurer. This display is why people dislike and distrust politicians. The reality is that high interest rates are the direct result of economic policy under successive Liberal and Labor governments—policy that damaged our manufacturing and farming sectors whilst transferring gross domestic product from real jobs in the private sector to jobs in the government sector. Reserve Bank Governor Bullock’s interest rate strategy is a response to Labor government policy. Labor government policy has decided the RBA’s strategy.
Instead of bullying the Reserve Bank governor into taking further interest rate rises off the table, Treasurer Chalmers could take action to prevent the need for those rises. Balance the budget and reduce government spending to match your income; Minister Shorten tried to bring the NDIS under control, and you forced him to walk the plank. Stop replacing base load power with net zero wind, solar transmission lines and battery back-up, driving up electricity prices and sending the government into debt. Reduce immigration, which is distorting the housing market and inflating government welfare and infrastructure spending. Stop giving grants and subsidies to foreign multinationals operating solar and wind here, and instead encourage local companies who retain the wealth here. Develop our productive capacity through a national rail loop enabling an Australian steel industry. There’s $100 billion of production, 40,000 real jobs and $25 billion in government revenue just in the Capricornia steel proposal at Queensland’s Abbot Point and the port of Gladstone every year. Treasurer Chalmers should stop bullying and start building, which is exactly what a One Nation government will do.
When the Prime Minister talks about ‘Future Made in Australia,’ he really means unworkable renewable projects made in Australia but owned by mostly foreign multinational corporations. There’s no national pride in this; it’s simply a cash cow for the PM’s renewables mates. The money is election fairy floss and not much more.
In this speech, I highlight projects that are genuinely made in Australia and involve mostly Australian companies and will grow the wealth and prosperity of our beautiful country. This includes the Iron Boomerang project, which will create a rail crossing across the top end, benefiting Aboriginal communities, grazing, and mining. It will also drive the Capricornia steel project at Port Hedland and Abbot Point, which will generate 40,000 breadwinner jobs, add $100 billion to our GDP and contribute $25 billion in government revenue.
One Nation builds, while the Albanese Government delivers press releases.
Transcript
The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 provides a legislative framework for parts of the government ‘s Future Made in Australia policy. This provides for an investment of $22.7 billion over the next 10 years to ‘help Australia become an indispensable part of the global economy as the world transforms to net zero emissions and undergoes the most significant changes since the industrial revolution’. The government talks about maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the move to net zero and securing Australia’s place in a changing global economic and strategic landscape. Specifically, the following claim is made by the government:
Given our critical and abundant natural endowments and skilled workforce, Australia is well positioned to strengthen priority supply chains and become an indispensable part of the net zero global economy.
One Nation are big supporters of the first part of that statement. Australia is blessed with abundant and substantial mineral resources, and it’s our obligation to share those with the world so other countries can enjoy the standard of living we have. That is, we used to have it. Now our economy is in a race to the bottom, with the Greens, teals and Labor in a race to see how many wealth-generating projects they can shut down.
The Future Made in Australia agenda includes broader investments in the government’s growth agenda, including critical technologies, defence priorities, skills in priority sectors, a competitive business environment and reforms to better attract and deploy investment—in particular, projects where some level of domestic capability is necessary for efficient delivery of economic resilience and security and the private sector will not deliver the necessary investment in the sector in the absence of government support. That’s an important point. I have been working with the project sponsor of Capricorn Steel, a steel park project in northern Queensland, which I will speak more often a moment. This project, known also as Project Iron Boomerang, includes a railway, port and new energy efficient ships. This is a $50 billion project, initially, which is to be entirely financed through private equity, who have the money ready to go but will not commit it, because they don’t trust the Australian government. After watching a litany of cancelled projects—like Adani, where a billionaire from India wanted to invest $17 billion in Australia, and we did our best as a country and as the state of Queensland to keep him out—long legal delays and general incompetence, financiers are taking their money elsewhere.
This is why the government is now creating an investment pathway to get things built again. It’s the government or nothing. The prime function of the government is to build infrastructure projects that allow private enterprise to grow the economy and raise the wealth and prosperity of all Australians; to improve productivity in a way that protects the natural environment. This bill adds a layer on top, which is that the development must be net zero friendly.
One Nation doesn’t believe in the United Nations’ globalist net zero agenda. There is no empirical scientific data, no logical scientific points and no policy basis. We’ve seen that repeatedly. We believe it involves a massive transfer of wealth from everyday citizens into the pockets of the world’s predatory billionaires—billionaire parasites sucking solar and wind subsidies. It forms a highly regressive tax on the poor using electricity. We wonder when the Left signed on to a crony capitalist agenda that hurts everyday Australians for no environmental benefit. That’s a separate issue. One Nation does agree the national environment should be protected. We are stewards of the most fragile ecosystem in the world, and we must act with care. This bill doesn’t actually mention good stewardship of the natural environment, but it’s okay; One Nation does that as part of our core party values.
The Future Made in Australia policy includes the following broad stated aims: firstly, attracting investment in key industries through the national investment framework, streamlining approval processes for investment and encouraging private sector investment in sustainable industries; secondly, investing in net zero industries and increasing the demand for Australia’s green exports; thirdly, strengthening resources and economic security by investing in resources and critical mineral supply chains, as well as investing in manufacturing of clean energy technology; and fourthly, investing in new technologies and capabilities, reforming tertiary education, providing a training and skills pipeline for Future Made in Australia priority industries, strengthening defence capability and increasing drought and disaster resilience, among other things.
The bill establishes the National Interest Framework, to be used for sector assessments which will determine which sectors of the economy are ones in which Australia could have a competitive advantage in a net zero economy and that require government investment, or where some degree of domestic capacity is required for the economic resilience and security. The government’s stated guidelines in this section include a community benefit test which includes promoting safe, secure and well-paid work; developing skilled and inclusive workforces; working with communities to achieve positive outcomes, in particular First Nations communities and those affected by the transition to net zero; and strengthening domestic industrial capabilities, including local supply chains. This sounds like socialism—government wanting to control.
One Nation agrees with the intent. In particular, the industrial and mining sectors are being hollowed out through net zero measures to the detriment of the workers, unionists and their families. If the government is telling the truth, they will be able to rectify what they’ve already done in hollowing out the bush and the mining and manufacturing. Otherwise, fine Australian workers will join the tent cities that have sprung up under this Labor government. It should be pointed out that local supply chains are in fact part of the United Nations 2030 sustainability goals. It is more commonly called short supply chains. This goal encourages local supply of all goods and services, especially food. This may seem fine until you realise that, under this goal, anything which can’t be supplied locally will not be available at all. That’s the design. Except it will be available to the nomenklatura who can afford the carbon dioxide tax on long supply chains. If Australians want to live in a world that even vaguely resembles the world we grew up in, then local manufacturing is essential.
This bill seems to represent a newfound realisation by the Albanese Labor government that their union bosses and union members are running out of jobs, the economy is tanking and the next election is moving way out of reach. One Nation can get on board with making things here again. We can’t, though, get on board with all the net zero nonsense in this bill. The bill is written generally, allowing the minister wide powers to completely stuff things up. I don’t see this as any different to the general stuffing-up the Albanese government is already doing. Giving it more ways to make mistakes seems like a bad idea.
The bill has some good qualities. The economic resilience and security stream relates to sectors where Australia requires a degree of domestic capacity and resilience for domestic, economic or security reasons, and there’s an absence of private sector investment with that government support. The provisions around this section are quite extensive and seem to be a genuine attempt to provide for Australia’s sovereign industrial capacity—without using the word ‘sovereign’, of course!
Let me give you an example of a project that fits the economic resilience and security rules like a glove and provides breadwinner, family friendly, secure jobs for tens of thousands of Australians. Capricorn Steel is a project to create an Australian steel industry using new, zero-emission steel plants located at Abbot Point near Townsville and Port Hedland in Western Australia. Boomerang ships would take beautiful Queensland coking coal around to Port Hedland in Western Australia, where it’ll be used with their iron ore to produce Australian steel. This will be the world’s highest-quality steel, produced at 10 to 15 per cent less than China—the cheapest quality steel in the world.
From Port Hedland this steel can be exported to markets in the subcontinent—India and Europe. The development crescent of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia will become the world’s largest steel market over the next 20 years; Australia is perfectly placed to capitalise on that. Those ships will return to the Port of Gladstone carrying iron ore which will be combined with Australian coking coal to create a second steel park at Abbot Point. From there, Inland Rail can take this steel anywhere in Australia to help meet Australia’s steel needs—steel that is critical to net zero, housing, construction and our modern lifestyle, steel that is critical to Australia’s defence capability. Abbot Point, or the Port of Gladstone, is perfectly situated to export this steel to Asia, China and the United States.
Development of a railway across the Top End to open up areas currently served by road as well as new port facilities and new high-efficiency shipping are all projects that satisfy the development criteria in this bill—plus a water pipeline, plus a communications link to open up Central Australia and northern Queensland, the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia. Capricorn Steel and Project Iron Boomerang will add $100 billion to Australia’s gross domestic product, provide 40,000 secure breadwinner jobs and provide $25 billion in government revenue every year. Capricorn Steel will be emission free, for those who believe this global warming nonsense. Every ton of steel produced in the zero-emission steel plants to be constructed at Port Hedland and Abbot Point will save two tonnes of carbon dioxide from steel produced elsewhere. That’s a reduction in carbon dioxide production of 88 million tonnes a year.
There is no net zero without steel. Yet all the messaging coming from the government around this bill is nothing but net zero, which is nonsense. I get it: even net zero carpetbaggers are running out of interest in this failed net zero scam, so the government has to steal taxpayers’ money to keep net zero going.
One Nation has no confidence this bill will achieve anything positive for Australia. If the government wants to move the provisions around economic resilience and security into a new bill, with Infrastructure Australia in charge, One Nation would be delighted to support those measures.
The Strategic Shipping Fleet proposes tax incentives for selected shipping owners to flag vessels in Australia and employ Australian crews. The plan aims to ensure these ships remain near Australia for potential repurposing during supply crises to maintain essential goods supply.
One Nation supports this proposal, however the published plan lacks detail, particularly regarding the types of freight that would provide commercial viability while keeping these ships nearby. It appears that implementation of this idea is still far off.
The allocated budget only covers planning for another 5 years, yet the Department indicated that the budget did have an allocation for implementation, but that the details were not for disclosure. Publishing such budget information can help guide tendering companies on bid amounts, but it can also be misleading if funding isn’t actually available.
Despite the Minister’s assurance of implementation within 5 years, I remain unconvinced.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this evening. I’d like to ask some broad questions on the scoping of the strategic shipping fleet that Labor has announced and that we support. It’s been something we’ve been pushing for a while. Then I’d like to ask a few questions that build on what Senator O’Sullivan’s been talking about. Queensland should be a big winner out of the proposal for a strategic fleet, with a long coastline currently underserved by road and rail transport. A national rail circuit would help that too, and I’ll ask about that later. However, the idea is to encourage private ownership of ships to service the Australian coastline and the Pacific which could then be requisitioned in the event of an emergency, like the next virus or whatever. The report doesn’t go into detail about where the freight will come from, so we don’t know if it’s commercially viable— specifically which companies and how many containers. Do you have any information on where the containers are going to come from to keep container vessels commercially engaged in the scheme? What’s the volume of cargo? Or is it just very early days?
Mr Johnson: The planned approach in terms of selecting the vessels for the strategic fleet is to approach the market, and there are questions for that marketplace about both the capability of vessels they might put forward to join the strategic fleet and the commerciality of those vessels, which really goes to what freight they’re moving currently and how they propose their vessels will fit into the commercial marketplace. That’ll give us the information on the volumes of cargo and those sorts of things that would be moved on a normal day-to-day basis. But the vessel would be Australian flagged and crewed and therefore, as part of the arrangements to join the strategic fleet, would be available for that requisition.
Senator ROBERTS: Am I right in assessing then, Mr Johnson, that it’s very loose, maybe deliberately so— and maybe commendably so—and the arrangement at the moment hasn’t been fleshed out?
Mr Johnson: Part of what we’re looking at in terms of how the fleet’s established is to get the industry to come forward with those views on how that capability might be provided and what’s commercial in the marketplace, rather than us trying to identify what’s commercial. Then the industry would provide that in the proposals put forward to join the fleet, which we would then match up with the capabilities and capacities of the fleet that would suit the purposes for requisition later. So it’d be work with industry to join the two through theapproach to market process.
Senator ROBERTS: The funding in this budget is $21.7 million over five years, which seems enough to keep a small team of bureaucrats busy but little else. Does that not seem to include funding for the tax incentives and other costs in the scheme once operational? Can you confirm whether the funding is pre-operational only?
Mr Johnson: You’re correct; that is the funding to support the administration of the strategic fleet—
Senator ROBERTS: Ongoing.
Mr Johnson: and implementation of the other recommendations in the strategic fleet taskforce report. The amount of funding to actually support implementation of the fleet has been allocated but hasn’t been announced.
Senator ROBERTS: Has been allocated but not announced.
Mr Johnson: Yes.
Ms Purvis-Smith: It is not for publication, and that is so it doesn’t prejudice the government getting negotiations with market players so that we can get value for money.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I know that during COVID our fuel reserves got down to just two days, which is very poor governance in my opinion. This does illustrate why we need a strategic fleet, but the delay worries me. Can you confirm that, within the next five years, there will not be one extra ship with Australian crew operational in Australia as a result of the scheme?
Mr Johnson: The intention is to have the three vessels announced in the budget by the government operational within the next five years.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’ve had the maritime union and a shipping operator on the phone asking for more details—actually asking for a meeting with the department and the minister to see how they can respond to this development and swing freight over to the strategic fleet. Should I tell them to come back in five years or will you meet with them to get the ball rolling on planning new freight routes for container transport?
Senator Chisholm: I’m sure that people would be happy to take a request for a meeting. But, as you heard just then from Mr Johnson, we are keen to get this operating sooner than five years.
Inland Rail is a multi-billion dollar project aimed at extending the existing inland railway line that currently runs between Melbourne and Parkes, and up to Brisbane. This will be a combination of existing and new sections of rail. The idea is to have a north south connection between Brisbane and Melbourne that can shift hundreds of thousands of movement from road to rail freight. This line will need to be upgraded to accommodate double-stacked container trains that are 1.8 km long.
One Nation supports rail transport over road transport, but for this to be effective, the rail service must reflect the needs of the industry. This means trains need to depart according to industry schedules, reliable connections need to be maintained, and fair pricing offered. Inland Rail, in its current form, will provide none of those things. The current alignment (route) in QLD takes the line across the Condamine floodplain, which is, quite frankly, a stupid idea. The deep clay soil in that area cannot support a railway line without horrendously expensive supports, which will then act as a dam during a flood. The Brisbane Port access is constrained, meaning the railway line across Brisbane and into the Port is running close to capacity, with no easy way to extend it. The Port of Gladstone offers a much better option. The line can go inland up the Mooney Highway, then through Wandoan to Banana and onwards to Gladstone. This direct, flood-free alignment will provide a cheaper and more reliable transit option.
A new container handling facility is being built in Gladstone, with an intermodal connection to the railway. Gladstone is perfectly positioned to serve as Australia’s gateway port for container traffic from Asia. Best of all, the Port is located away from the city and is strongly supported by local councils. Despite inquiring about this option, it appears the floodplain alignment remains the preferred option. This is not good enough! One Nation will continue to campaign for Inland Rail to run through to the Port of Gladstone.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. I have a number of questions, but I think they’re fairly short and straightforward. Recommendation 1 of the Schott report into the ARTC was to address skills deficiencies in the ARTC. I note that you’ve hired a new chair, Mr Peter Duncan. Has Mr Duncan ever built a railway?
Mr Johnson: Mr Duncan is the chair of the board. His skills go to requisite skills to be able to lead a board and our organisation. He is certainly familiar with long linear infrastructure, the engineering infrastructure. He’s very familiar with that from his prior roles.
Senator ROBERTS: What sort of long—
Mr Johnson: Roads and water. It’s really not a matter for me to comment on the appointment of other directors and Mr Duncan in a role. What I would say is that the board are working really well with myself and holding me to account to make sure we’ve got the requisite skills to operate, maintain and create the network. Further to the recommendations, a key recommendation from Dr Schott’s report and the review was the establishment of the Inland Rail subsidiary and the establishment of the board in parallel. That’s why we sit here today. Nick is the new CEO to Inland Rail. That subsidiary is now fully fledged. They have both a chair and a board in place for the construction of Inland Rail.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate and understand the distinctions between governance, management and trusteeship, if you like. He has not built a railway, but he has done other long infrastructure. The other new senior hire is Dr Collette Burke, who is a qualified engineer. Can you confirm her engineering qualification, please?
Mr Johnson: I know that Collette is an esteemed and qualified engineer, but I don’t have those details in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we get it on notice, please?
Mr Johnson: No problem.
Senator ROBERTS: There are reports—these may be old—that Dr Burke is also contributing to the Marinus Link from Tasmania to Victoria and Snowy Hydro 2.0. At these still current appointments?
Mr Johnson: Like all directors, Collette as a director on the board has made clear what other commitments she has and whether are any conflicts at play. I can confirm that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: So she is still on the other two boards?
Mr Johnson: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, has the government made any other appointments to ARTC that address the skills deficiencies identified in the Schott report?
Senator Carol Brown: I don’t have that information with me, but I can take it on notice.
Mr Miller: Of course there’s a secondary board now, the subsidiary board of Inland Rail, whose directors all have extensive infrastructure experience.
Senator ROBERTS: In the earlier discussion on Inland Rail, I asked about what has been called the Goondiwindi to Gladstone alignment. I was advised that this is in the hands of the Queensland government. I find that surprising, when the Commonwealth government is paying for the project. It sounds like the Queensland government is going to decide how the Commonwealth spends the money. The Goondiwindi to Gladstone route is substantially cheaper, and I know there is at least one private partnership trying to get the attention of government with extensive expertise in railroads, freight, construction and shipping. They have money to spend. They’re willing to make a commitment, especially on the Surat Basin link from Moranbah to Banana. I don’t understand why, when the government is juggling budget deficits moving forward, it’s proving so hard to get even a meeting about a public-private partnership happening on this alternative route.
Mr Johnson: Just to be really clear, there are a few things happening there in parallel. Inland Rail Pty Ltd, headed by Nick, are continuing the work around the design of the route that heads over the Toowoomba range to Ebenezer, and working closely with the National Intermodal company on the connection at Ebenezer. That’s what Inland Rail are focused on. I am aware that there is some early business case development for other alternative options—Goondiwindi or Toowoomba to Gladstone—that the Queensland government have had some insight into.
Senator ROBERTS: So both Goondiwindi to Gladstone and Toowoomba to Gladstone are being considered as alternative business cases?
Mr Johnson: I have heard that both are. That’s right. I am acutely aware of the private interest that you’ve mentioned, and we’ve made it clear to the proponent—as we would for anyone who was interested in either developing, adjoining or working around the network, given we’re really the national rail network manager—that, when they get to the point that they’re at an EIS, an environmental impact statement, we’d be happy to support what type of views or impacts that would have, in a practical sense, and suggest what they might consider in that input. We have met, so I’m a little bit lost with the statement that it’s hard to get that meeting.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve already been working with them?
Mr Johnson: We’ve had a couple of meetings about what we can do at different stages, as they progress their development, to offer them whatever practical support we can, as we would for any other adjoining infrastructure manager.
Senator ROBERTS: So would you be willing to meet with a private investor who’s willing to fund the railroad construction from Surat Basin, from Moranbah to Banana?
Mr Johnson: We meet with a number of proponents. That one is a long way from our network, but nationally we’ve met with a number of people who are looking at different things, mostly where it’s connected to our network.
Senator ROBERTS: How about Inland Rail? Would you be willing to meet the investor to consider this?
Mr Miller: We’d be willing to meet to assist with indicative pricing that we have experienced per kilometre. It’s outside our scope in terms of our current remit. We’re going from border to Toowoomba and then down to Kagaru, and that’s where our focus is, around the environmental approvals and land acquisition, at present.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the vast majority of the cost of Inland Rail—from Toowoomba to Brisbane—as I understand it.
Mr Miller: It’s a significant part of Inland Rail. It’s not the vast majority.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We can argue about that at another time. Does the ARTC have any other publicprivate partnerships in place for Inland Rail? By ‘private’, I mean actually contributing private funding to the project.
Mr Johnson: No. The private partnership contract has ceased.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the ARTC have any signed agreements in the Queensland leg of Inland Rail? If so, which?
Mr Miller: Signed agreements?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Miller: With agencies or—
Senator ROBERTS: Any agreements committing Inland Rail to—
Mr Miller: Yes, we do. We have multiple land agreements in place. We are well developed with our environmental approvals.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s for the Toowoomba to Ebenezer route?
Mr Miller: That’s from the border to Toowoomba—the Gowrie route.
Senator ROBERTS: Across the Condamine?
Mr Miller: Across the Condamine. We expect to be in a position to go to public exhibition No. 2 in the last quarter of this year with that EIS approval.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the sunk cost of Inland Rail specifically for the Queensland sections? You can do that on notice.
Mr Miller: I will do that on notice. I can advise the Senate that to date—or to the end of March—we have spent $4.3 billion on the entire program.
Senator ROBERTS: In Queensland?
Mr Miller: No, across the entire program.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could I have the—
Mr Miller: The sunk cost for Queensland?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. The rail line from Ebenezer to the port of Brisbane is constrained. The available capacity on that line does not allow for the volume of freight necessary to ever get the construction costs back. The cost of the tunnel down the mountain is without a doubt $20 million, and it won’t be necessary if the rail line terminates in the port of Gladstone. Are they considerations you’re working on in the back of your mind?
Mr Miller: Our current scope of work is to take double-stack container trains to Ebenezer, and then they are transitioned to single-stack to Kagaru. That’s our scope.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I don’t understand why this economic reality has not been seized upon to reset the planning towards the Goondiwindi to Gladstone route, with freight destined for the airport at Wellcamp coming down from the Miles intermodal to Wellcamp. Are you considering that as part of the alternative?
Mr Miller: We’re not considering an alternative, but what we are considering is getting the environmental approvals and land acquisition to Toowoomba as a priority, and we’re continuing with the Kagaru section, with three EISs concurrently in that space.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re aware of the massive concerns about the Condamine crossing?
Mr Miller: Yes, we are, and we’ve undertaken very significant hydrological studies. Those studies have been to a flood panel and have been accepted as part of the EIS process.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the foundations for the elevated section of that line, which will be fairly lengthy?
Mr Miller: Yes, there is going to be an elevated section through the Condamine to improve resilience and reliability during flood periods.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the cost?
Mr Miller: We are working through the costs. The costs will be subject to the conditions that, ultimately, the EIS from the Coordinator-General’s office in Queensland puts upon us, plus the timeline, in terms of when that’s going to be built with inflation and the like, and the design and geotech that’s going on. We’re also doing some embankment trials in that area to ascertain what settlement impacts there will be, and what that means from an engineering perspective, so we can more accurately define the cost and scope.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the outcome of this review by ARTC and the Queensland government of the Queensland leg, in my opinion, must lead to the abandonment of the Condamine floodplain crossing of this railway line; otherwise the railway line won’t be built. That’s my opinion. I’d like to know your feedback on that. What are you getting in the way of reassurance from Inland Rail?
Senator Carol Brown: We take our advice from the experts.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they outside Inland Rail or inside?
Senator Carol Brown: Thank you for your view.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you getting experts from inside Inland Rail, as well as outside Inland Rail, especially on the Condamine crossing?
Senator Carol Brown: We get our expert opinions from Inland Rail, as well as our departmental people, but thank you for your view. I’ll pass it on.
In July 2022, I was successful in having the Senate conduct an inquiry into the ‘Iron Boomerang’ project. This project aims to build steel mills in Abbott Point Townsville and Port Headland, connecting iron ore from the west with coal from Queensland to manufacture Australian steel of superior quality at a more competitive price compared to other steel producers.
World leading steel producers are eager to construct these mills at their own expense, recognising the undeniable financial and quality advantages of the project. Yet, governments have stood in the way of approvals since the project was first raised in the 1980s.
Now for the first time, all relevant governments needed to approve the project are from the same party, removing the political obstacles that have hindered progress so far.
One Nation has been advocating for this project since 2016 and Minister Ayr’s responses to my inquiries today were encouraging. I appreciate the Minister’s comprehensive understanding of the project and wholeheartedly agree with the numerous benefits it offers.
I look forward to this project receiving approval.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Recommendation 2 of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee inquiry report into the project known as Iron Boomerang reads: The committee recommends the Australian Government commissions and publishes a scoping study on the establishment of a steel plant/s located in Northern Australia. This relates to the proposal for steel plants at Abbot Point near Townsville and Port Hedland in Western Australia with a railway line or ships being used to exchange iron ore and coal backwards and forwards to make the world’s highest quality steel prices that undercut China by at least 10 per cent. This project will generate hundreds of billions of dollars per year in steel and associated products, many fine by-products, and create tens of thousands of breadwinner jobs. The project proponents have advised they have the funding to build this project from leading infrastructure world funds already. This project does not need public money. The land at Abbot Point is already zoned for a steel mill. Minister, my question is, will you call this inquiry and ensure our future really is made in Australia?
Senator Ayres: I’m advised that the government is considering its response to this inquiry. I can say further that of course iron ore is one of Australia’s largest commodity exports. We have a very capable mining sector, and we also have adjacent to our mining sector vast solar and wind reserves. The Future Made in Australia agenda is looking at value adding in iron and steel, across a range of our critical mineral categories. It offers very significant opportunities for investment in precisely the kind of industrial capability that you are referring to here. I don’t know anything about the actual proponents of these particular facilities, but in the broad, in metals processing Australia has a significant future comparative advantage. This government wants to make sure that we secure that comparative advantage and that investment, I’m sure.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, but this project as it stands will significantly—I don’t believe it’s necessary to reduce carbon dioxide from human activity, but you do and the government does. This project as it stands, with the use of conventional rail, conventional ships, will dramatically reduce the carbon dioxide from human activity because there will be no empty backloading. There will be no oneway transport of coal or iron ore, which are currently exported in massive quantities from this country. Instead, they’ll just be shuffled across the country in a very limited transport regime and back load so that there will always be a load.
Senator Ayres: Much broader than that is our advantage in solar and wind with 97 per cent of our trading partners, including our trading partners in energy and steel production. Think of markets in Korea and Japan. There are very significant opportunities for Australia in both economic development terms and also, as you point to, in emissions reductions terms, to make a significant contribution to the emissions reductions by our partners by producing onshore in a cleaner way than our trading partners do. This is a very significant national interest question for Australia, and the government is working hard to secure future investments in this area.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/LK34Rj35pug/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-18 09:38:142024-06-18 11:02:27World Leading Steel Producers Eager for Iron Boomerang to Begin
The Albanese government is deliberately opposing my motion to disclose the infrastructure review it’s using to justify slashing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of critical infrastructure projects around Australia. These projects include dams for towns and agriculture, transportation and visionary nation-building projects. These cuts will impact critical areas where investment is necessary, all while sending substantial funds to the United Nations and Tedros the Terrorist at the WHO.
Australia requires productive infrastructure to cultivate its competitive and productive edge, reducing its dependence on other nations that purchase our raw materials, like iron ore, for steel and other construction materials. Why should we export raw materials only to buy back finished goods instead of manufacturing the entire product domestically? Australia possesses all the necessary resources to achieve self-reliance, lacking only a government with common sense to facilitate it.
How many more instances must we uncover before this Labor government reveals the secrets it’s concealing from Australian taxpayers? Australians deserve the transparency and accountability they were promised, and the infrastructure that this country badly needs.
Transcript
The Albanese government is making secret cuts to infrastructure projects. Twice now the Senate has passed my motion, forcing the government to hand over the full infrastructure review that they used to justify cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in projects. Twice, the government has opposed transparency and accountability about its secret infrastructure cuts. How many more times will the Labor government keep secrets from Australian taxpayers?
This is the Labor review that concluded the Emu Swamp dam at Stanthorpe should be cancelled. Only three years ago, this southern Queensland town was in severe drought and ran dry. They had to cart in millions of litres of water by truck just to survive. Up to 50 trucks carted water hundreds of kilometres every day for 15 months. On what basis did the Labor government conclude Stanthorpe doesn’t deserve a dam? We might never know. The government has so far refused to hand over the review that justifies the decision. If Stanthorpe doesn’t have water, Stanthorpe will die. The Labor government needs to answer why they believe Stanthorpe should be left to die in the next drought. It has literally been hung out to dry. One Nation will keep fighting for those answers and we will fight for more dams across Queensland. What we need in Australia is productive infrastructure to build our competitive advantage—our productive competitiveness. We need dams that agriculture can use to boom. We need cheap power, from which the entire economy will benefit. We need functional roads that don’t have potholes big enough to destroy a car’s suspension.
Australia needs visionary, nation-building projects—infrastructure projects like the Iron Boomerang. Right now, every year, we send 900 million tonnes of iron ore and 360 million tonnes of coal overseas. We ship it overseas. Those are two essential ingredients to making steel, which we largely import. We put that dirt on a boat, places like China buy it, they turn it into steel, they make things like unproductive wind turbines out of the steel, they put them on a boat and they ship the wind turbines back to Australia in the form of steel, where our dopey government buys it off them.
We should let private enterprise build the Iron Boomerang track linking our iron ore and coalmines, so we can make the steel right here in this country. The government doesn’t even have to build Iron Boomerang. They just have to promise they won’t get in the way, and then private money will pay for it. That money is already knocking on the door. These are the kinds of nation-building infrastructure projects that would be on the horizon if One Nation had our way. We certainly wouldn’t be cutting productive infrastructure, like dams, in secret as the Labor government is doing. Before all of that we need accountable and transparent government. Labor continues to prove it will never be transparent. Their secret infrastructure cuts are just the latest example of a government that’s afraid of explaining itself to the voters.
The Senate will debate and vote on establishing an inquiry into the shutdown of the 3G mobile network on Tuesday, 26 March 2024.
The 3G network is an essential service for millions of Australians. 3 million 3G-reliant devices are estimated to be affected by the looming shutdown, including 200,000 medical alarms.
Farmers across the country rely on 3G wherever there is no 4G coverage, as well as using equipment that doesn’t operate on 4G.
740,000 4G customers will be unable to dial Triple Zero in an emergency.
The Albanese government is deliberately opposing my motion to reveal the infrastructure review it’s using to justify cutting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of badly needed infrastructure projects around Australia. Projects like dams for towns and agriculture, transport projects and visionary nation-building projects. It’s cutting costs in areas where we need to spend, while sending huge sums to the United Nations and Tedros the Terrorist at the WHO.
Australia needs a productive infrastructure so that we can build our competitive and productive advantage and stop relying on other nations who buy our raw materials such as iron ore, for example, for steel and other building materials. Why are we exporting raw materials and buying back finished products instead of making the whole product here? Australia has everything it needs to be self-reliant, except for a government with the common sense to facilitate it.
How many more times will this Labor government be exposed for the secrets its hiding from the Australian taxpayers?
Australians deserve the transparency and accountability they were promised, and the infrastructure this country badly needs.
Transcript
The Albanese government is making secret cuts to infrastructure projects. Twice now the Senate has passed my motion, forcing the government to hand over the full infrastructure review that they used to justify cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in projects. Twice, the government has opposed transparency and accountability about its secret infrastructure cuts. How many more times will the Labor government keep secrets from Australian taxpayers?
This is the Labor review that concluded the Emu Swamp dam at Stanthorpe should be cancelled. Only three years ago, this southern Queensland town was in severe drought and ran dry. They had to cart in millions of litres of water by truck just to survive. Up to 50 trucks carted water hundreds of kilometres every day for 15 months. On what basis did the Labor government conclude Stanthorpe doesn’t deserve a dam? We might never know. The government has so far refused to hand over the review that justifies the decision. If Stanthorpe doesn’t have water, Stanthorpe will die. The Labor government needs to answer why they believe Stanthorpe should be left to die in the next drought. It has literally been hung out to dry. One Nation will keep fighting for those answers and we will fight for more dams across Queensland. What we need in Australia is productive infrastructure to build our competitive advantage—our productive competitiveness. We need dams that agriculture can use to boom. We need cheap power, from which the entire economy will benefit. We need functional roads that don’t have potholes big enough to destroy a car’s suspension.
Australia needs visionary, nation-building projects—infrastructure projects like the Iron Boomerang. Right now, every year, we send 900 million tonnes of iron ore and 360 million tonnes of coal overseas. We ship it overseas. Those are two essential ingredients to making steel, which we largely import. We put that dirt on a boat, places like China buy it, they turn it into steel, they make things like unproductive wind turbines out of the steel, they put them on a boat and they ship the wind turbines back to Australia in the form of steel, where our dopey government buys it off them.
We should let private enterprise build the Iron Boomerang track linking our iron ore and coalmines, so we can make the steel right here in this country. The government doesn’t even have to build Iron Boomerang. They just have to promise they won’t get in the way, and then private money will pay for it. That money is already knocking on the door. These are the kinds of nation-building infrastructure projects that would be on the horizon if One Nation had our way. We certainly wouldn’t be cutting productive infrastructure, like dams, in secret as the Labor government is doing. Before all of that we need accountable and transparent government. Labor continues to prove it will never be transparent. Their secret infrastructure cuts are just the latest example of a government that’s afraid of explaining itself to the voters.
Tues 5-Dec-2023 | This was voted down by Labor, Liberal-Nationals, the Greens & the Lambie Network.
What have these parties got to hide that they DO NOT WANT an agency that decides billions of dollars in government projects to divulge conflicts of interest?
Labor is hollowing out the bush and lying about it. I asked why the Emu Swamp Dam near Stanthorpe in Queensland was cancelled and Minister Watt responded that it was the road that was cancelled. What Minister Watt did not admit was that Labor had cancelled the dam last year and had recently cancelled the infrastructure around the dam, just to make sure it never gets built.
During the recent drought, Stanthorpe, famous for its apples and grapes, had to resort to water tankers to keep it’s residents supplied. Access to clean water is a basic human requirement. The Emu Swamp Dam was a modest solution to water shortage in the Southern Downs of Queensland. Labor are refusing to build dams for drinking water and instead plan to use treated recycled water for drinking water. I will speak more on that next year.
Labor destroy where One Nation would build.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Minister, why is the Australian government no longer proceeding with construction of the Emu Swamp dam and pipeline located near Stanthorpe in our state of Queensland?
Senator Watt (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Senator Roberts. I welcome a question about Queensland infrastructure from a Queensland senator on the other side of the chamber. It’s a shame people like Senator McGrath didn’t manage to get a question up about these important issues. Senator McGrath, of course, is just reduced to interjections, rather than asking serious questions about these matters.
The President: Senator Watt.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator Watt: You don’t want to hear that? You don’t want to hear about your failures on infrastructure? If you’ve heard what I’ve had to say this week, Senator Roberts, you’ll know that the infrastructure budget that we inherited from the coalition was hopelessly overblown. There was a budget blowout of $33 billion.
Senator Birmingham: I rise on a point of order. This is actually a good example of the type of point of order that I made before. Senator Roberts asked a question about a particular infrastructure project, the Emu Swamp dam. That should not then be a licence for the minister to go off talking about infrastructure projects in general, or the former government in general. It was clearly a question specific to a particular project, and the minister should be drawn to answer on that project.
Senator Wong: On the point of order, I can recall many times when coalition ministers went much farther than 41 seconds in before they even got close to the question. I’d remind you of Senator Brandis. We all remember Senator Brandis when he was sitting in this chair.
Senator Birmingham: And I can remember you sitting in this chair and what you had to say.
Senator Wong: And I never got very far with that argument, but hope beats eternal.
Senator Rennick interjecting—
The President: Senator Rennick!
Senator Watt: Poor old Gerard. You’re not going to be here long, though, are you? Enjoy it while you’re here, Gerard.
Senator Henderson: That is really nasty, Senator Watt. You’re a nasty piece of work.
The President: Order across the chamber! Senator Henderson, I ask you to withdraw that remark.
Senator Henderson: Can I take a point of order?
The President: I’ve asked you to withdraw the remark, Senator Henderson.
Senator Henderson: I wish to make a point of order, President.
The President: Senator Henderson, I’ve asked you to withdraw your remark.
Senator Henderson: I withdraw, but can I take a point of order?
The President: If you sit down, I will entertain a point of order—as long it’s not on me asking you to withdraw. Thank you. Senator Henderson.
Senator Henderson: I rise on a point of order. Senator Watt just made a very uncalled for and offensive remark in relation to Senator Rennick, and I would ask him to withdraw it.
The President: Senator Henderson, I didn’t hear any remark. The chamber was incredibly disorderly at the time. All I can do is ask Senator Watt, if he made a personal reflection on Senator Rennick, to withdraw that.
Senator Watt: I’m happy to withdraw. Senator Rennick has a lot to say. I’m happy to withdraw.
The President: Senator Watt, before I call you again, I will draw your attention back to Senator Roberts’s question.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I was explaining the basis for the decisions. The particular project that you’re talking about that won’t be proceeding is a road to a dam that is not proceeding. This government thinks that it’s a good idea, if you’re spending infrastructure money on a road, that it should be a road that leads to something that is actually happening and exists. That dam was a promise that was made by the former coalition government that never had the funding, wasn’t properly planned and is not proceeding. Senator Roberts, I know you’re someone who cares very much about the appropriate use of taxpayers’ funds. You would agree, I’m sure, that it’s not a good use of taxpayers’ funds to build roads that lead to dams that don’t exist and won’t exist.
But, Senator Roberts, I’m sure you’d also be pleased to have heard me talk about some of the projects in Queensland that are getting funding and that are only possible because of those sorts of decisions about the responsible allocation of funding. Because of that we can now fund the cost increase in the Rockhampton Ring Road project with an extra $348 million in addition to the money that the federal government had allocated. I know Central Queensland is an area that you’re interested in, Senator Roberts. By cutting projects that won’t exist and that aren’t needed, we can fund other things like that. (Time expired)
