Posts

Increased Land Values in Queensland – Labor’s Tax Grab

,

I spoke with Daisy Cousens last Friday on increased land values in #Queensland and how the government benefits. As well as Digital ID and the upcoming rallies around Australian capital cities.

Watch ‘The Daisy Cousens Show’ live and on demand Fridays 7pm AEST at ADH TV: https://adh.tv/videos/the-daisy-cousens-show

Transcript

Daisy Cousens: Well, it’s abundantly clear by now that despite trying to con Australians with a $15 a week tax break, Federal Labor is ideologically perfectly happy to rob citizens blind by taxing them out the wazoo. The beginning example of that was the reinstating of the 37.5% tax bracket, which ensures bracket creep will continue in perpetuity. However, in an even sneakier ploy, Labor is now taxing by stealth by increasing land values. Joining me this evening is One Nation Senator, the wonderful Malcolm Roberts. Senator, fabulous to have you here this evening. How are you?

Senator ROBERTS: I’m very well, thanks Daisy and thank you for the invitation. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Daisy Cousens: Well, it’s wonderful, wonderful to have you here. I’m very, very keen to get your take on this Senator. There has been a lot of upset up north about an increase in land value. And look, at first thought this might sound like a great thing for farmers, that their land is now worth more. But when you take tax into account, the tax hungry Labor government, this all you know, starts to make sense from their point of view, doesn’t it?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’d love to talk about the tax hungry Labor government, but we also must talk about the tax hungry Liberal opposition and former Liberal government. But we’ll come to that hopefully.

Daisy Cousens: Hmm.

Senator ROBERTS: Inflation, as you quite rightly pointed out, is a stealth tax.  It’s stealthy thing that people don’t see but it reduces disposable income and what we see is land values going up for, and I think an 11% increase in the number of properties that that will be subject to land tax because it’s a threshold of 600,000 and above, but also remember the land valuations are bases for rates and  councils right across the state are under pressure, some through mismanagement, some through mismanagement from the state government. But the systems are so complex and so confusing, and the accounting systems, that local councils will be increasing rates as well.  So, this will slug everyone – it’ll mean less disposable income.  So, people’s stand of living will be going backwards.

Daisy Cousens: Gosh, which is appalling in this cost-of-living crisis. I hate this sort of ideological bit that political parties have that it’s okay just to tax people into oblivion, because as you rightly mentioned, the Liberal Party. I’m always on about how, you know, Labor is so happy to tax citizens, but the same can actually be said quietly about the Liberal Party can’t it?

Senator ROBERTS: It can be. I moved a motion, an amendment, sorry, recently into one of the pieces of legislation that Labor had introduced to the Senate and that was simply to remove bracket creep. It was done properly. The Liberals even stood up and said they commend me for it, they like the way the bill was written, but they’re not going to support it because they love bracket creep and so does the Labor Party. They love bracket creep.  They love seeing people go unconsciously into higher tax bracket, not even doing being aware that that’s the case and that’s an immediate increase in tax and so people don’t realise that they’re being, that they’re having more money stolen from them.

And then Dave Sharma, the new Liberal Senator, when he gave his maiden speech, his first speech in the Senate recently, he said he’s all in favour of removing bracket creep, but just two weeks before he he voted against removing bracket creep.  So, there was nothing wrong with my bill, they said it was well done but they couldn’t do it. So, both the Liberal and Labor Party.  And we’ve also got to remember that net-zero, putting in place net-zero foreign policy, increases energy prices which flow right through the economy. The energy sector is the most important sector in the economy in terms of the foundation for prices of goods and services because they flow right through and when you increase energy prices, you decrease productivity, you decrease wealth and that applies not only to individuals – it applies to businesses, it applies to communities. And the Liberal Party is the one who first said in government that they would support UN 2050 net-zero policy. So, the Liberal government is putting heavy impost on every person who uses electricity and every person who lives in this country.

Daisy Cousens: Hmm gosh! It’s so hypocritical of both the major parties because they both go on this bent, don’t they, pretending they’re for the little guy, or we’re for the workers, we’re for ordinary people, but how can they possibly say that with a straight face when they’re so happily happy to tax people?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, they’re used to the lies that they’re putting out. The climate scam is a lie. The climate fraud is a lie. The whole basis for these energy policies is a lie. And then we see – every major problem, Daisy, in this country comes out of Parliament House, Canberra, every major problem. Some of the problems come out of states, but they’re exacerbated by the federal government. So, we see inflation, was driven by the federal government and the Reserve Bank of Australia by printing far too much money during the COVID mismanagement.  The whole of that COVID mismanagement shut down supply routes, the supply side, so we had fewer goods, which meant that raised prices, and we had more money chasing those fewer goods, which further raise prices. So inflation, which is a hidden stealth tax as you rightly pointed out, is the cause of people going backward in disposable income. So inflation is the number one enemy and it was created by the Morrison government with the Labor Premiers in hand and by the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Daisy Cousens: Ohe absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: So what we need to so is actually open these people up to the truth.

Daisy Cousens: Hmm. Oh no, I agree with you and what people just I think conveniently shove under the rug or forget, certainly the Liberal Party does, was that it was the Liberal Party’s fault when they were in government a few years ago that we are in this inflationary position because they kept capitulating to the states’ demands for money for their ridiculous COVID policies. So, thank you for bringing that up and let’s never forget it. Now, Senator Roberts, according to this chart, the greater the rate of primary production, the higher the valuation increase. Is this justly proportional?

Senator ROBERTS: Daisy, let’s keep flogging everyone who’s successful. Let’s see how many successful people we have left in this country. That’s exactly what they’re doing. So, someone that works their land better, their business better, someone invests in their land, their business, and they have a higher productivity and what do we do? We slug them for it. That’s no way to reward talent. That’s no way to reward creativity and hard work and enterprise. That’s the opposite. It’ll cripple this country and it is crippling this country. That’s what we need to remember. This will do enormous damage to our primary producers and we call them primary producers for a bloody good reason. They’re the primary producers of the whole economy. Everything is based upon agriculture and mining, the two primary production sectors. Manufacturing is based on that. Goods and services in the services sector or the tertiary sector are all based upon it. So, we’re killing the primary sector and what it’s doing is it’s hollowing out the bush – they want us all to move from the bush and into the slums and cities – high density high rise living. Thomas Jefferson said it so well and Tim Ball, the expert climatologist from Canada, echoed those words. You can have farms without cities, Daisy, but you cannot have cities without farms. We are crippling this country.

Daisy Cousens: And that is such a good point. You know they are so important, our farmers, and they’re being treated so shoddily by the government and certainly, think of the cost-of-living crisis, as taxes increase for our farmers, won’t that in turn flow onto our grocery bills? Will they become even more expensive?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it will. And we’re seeing the prices increase already, quite dramatically, because of the recent increases in energy costs, which have been artificially driven by basically lies and also by inflation. And also, we must remember that we’re seeing the consequences of previous Liberal-National governments that stole farmers rights to use their land and to comply, that was the Liberal Party government’s way of complying with the United Nations Kyoto Protocol. They said they wouldn’t sign it, but that they will comply with it. The moment they did that they started putting in restrictions on land use. They got the state government involved, particularly in NSW and Queensland to put those land use restrictions in and now we see the Queensland government, two years ago, three years ago, bringing in legislation to cripple the farms right up and down the East Coast of Queensland which, as you know from our states layout, are fundamental agricultural areas.  They’re the richest agricultural areas – all in the name of the environment. And I asked questions in a Senate inquiry of the QLD experts -they don’t have any evidence for it. We must remember that the farmer, the owner of the land, is the most important custodian, the best custodian, because a farmer, if he ignores the environment around his land, his land deteriorates. The farmer is the best person for understanding the management of the environment.  The farmer is the one who’s going to miss out the most if he abuses that or she abuses that because they’re superannuation goes, they have got nothing to hand back to their kids. Whatever they want to do is gone. So the farmer is the best person to manage the land and the environment around his or her property. And what we’re doing is we’re putting it in charge of bureaucrats in Canberra, bureaucrats in Brisbane and bureaucrats in academia that are crippling our agricultural sector.

Daisy Cousens: Oh, absolutely. I mean, they’re just handing it over to people who have no idea what they’re doing. It’s outrageous! Now look, Senator, before we go, I have to talk to you about this Digital ID bill. You have been a real campaigner against the Digital ID bill. What is there left for Australians to do to stop this nightmare becoming imprinted as a reality?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, Daisy, I’m normally a very calm person and I don’t get upset too easily, but on Wednesday night, before Easter, after this bill went through without any debate, not one word of debate.  Amendments were moved and passed without one word of debate. And so that’s the first thing to recognise, the guillotine. So, I was shattered. But on Thursday I came into my office the next morning and found everyone in my office happy and I thought, what’s going on? And they said, Malcolm, the House of Reps was kept back late, the bill was introduced in the Senate and once it was passed in the Senate, it was supposed to go to the House of Reps, for passage through the House of Reps.  Well, it didn’t go to the House of Reps. And we believe that that’s the case because the public kicked up such a fuss, social media gutted Labor, social media gutted David Pocock the Teal, David Pocock the Teal senator and what we think is going on is that Labor is very, very worried about the consequences of passing this bill. And so, what we’re saying is 2 things. Every citizen get out there and hammer your local representative in parliament, in the House of Representatives. Not just the Labor Party but also the Liberal Party. Now the Liberals introduced this bloody bill into the parliament three years ago and I opposed it from the start. But the Liberals have voted with us against the bill two weeks ago in the Senate. So, we know the Liberals are sensitive in the lower house. We know that the Labor Party is sensitive in the lower house and the Teals and the Greens, so get out there and tell your lower house representative, your house representative member to vote against it.

Daisy Cousens: Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: The second thing is we saw the public rise up and I must congratulate everyone for doing that. We heard it in Canberra. Now what we need to do is – One Nation put out a petition opposing the digital identity bill. It got 60,000 signatures in the space of two days. Phenomenal.

Daisy Cousens: Fantastic.

Senator ROBERTS: And what we’re doing now based on that strength, we’re running a national protest day on May the 5th, Sunday May the 5th and we’ll be having protests in each of the major capital cities in Australia. So, it’ll be a very important that the public gets out and shows its voice.

Daisy Cousens: Absolutely. Thank you so much for letting us all know about those protests. And Senator, thank you so much for coming on the show this evening. You do wonderful work and I do hope we can see you again soon.

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to it. Thank you very much and have a good weekend, Daisy.

/5 Comments/by

Dirty by Nature

The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a deceptive name for a dirty bill that the Albanese government is rushing through the senate more than four months earlier than the committee requested.

What it’s really about is the federal government using the public purse to financially coerce farmers to lock up their land or walk off it altogether to satisfy the dictates of foreign, unelected climate change bureaucrats.

What’s the hurry to get this through? Does this government feel the winds of change blowing in its direction?

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I seek leave to make a short statement. 

The PRESIDENT: You have one minute with leave. 

Senator Roberts: The government’s motion to rush this inquiry report through today, more than four months earlier than the committee requested and the Senate agreed, is a dodgy, dirty deal. The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a deceptive, arrogant title. It’s really about the federal government financially coercing farmers to lock up their land or walk off it to satisfy the dictates of foreign, unelected climate change bureaucrats, like COP28. No wonder the government wants to cut short the inquiry into this bill and rush the bill through this week. All of the climate rent seekers are happy to support this bill because, eventually, it will lead to money in their pockets from the people of Australia. While farmers are paid to lock up their land, a lack of agricultural production will cause untold human misery both in Australia and overseas. One Nation will be opposing this rushed dirty deal. Give the committee the time it originally requested to make its report. 

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Chisholm seeking a variation to a reporting date of a committee be agreed to. 

The Senate divided.

/2 Comments/by

Federal Government Enables the States to Steal Property

I supported a motion from Senators Colbeck and Cadell that called for an inquiry into property rights. In particular, I speak here about the compulsory acquisition of land for the short-sighted and unsustainable failed wind and solar experiment across vast tracts of our countryside.

Although our Commonwealth Constitution recognises and enshrines secure property ownership, this is worthless because the States have become adept at stealing land from landowners, mostly in an ongoing attack on farmers. Worse still, State Governments are not paying “just compensation” that Australia’s Commonwealth Constitution demands (Section 51, clause 31), because the States each have their own constitutions that do not provide for just compensation.

The Labor Government is hell bent on vandalising vast tracts of prime environmental habitat and productive food-producing land for banks of expensive, unreliable wind turbines and toxic solar arrays, each with access roads and a spiderweb of high-voltage power lines that leave permanent scars across national parks and private land.

City dwellers will eventually recognise that demonising farmers and hijacking their land for massive energy white elephants is contributing to the rising cost of living.

Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson – you can have farms without cities, but you cannot have cities without the farms.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I remind people of what Thomas Jefferson said: ‘we can have farming without cities yet cannot have cities without farming’. No farmers, no Australia! Why does this Labor government use the states to steal property from hardworking landowners and rip off farmers left, right and centre? Why? Because it can. And it builds on actions of past Liberal-National governments. 

Before explaining that, Madam Acting Deputy President, let me say that I have a list of eight keys to ongoing, sustained human progress—just ones that I’ve developed over the years. The first is freedom. The second is the rule of law. The third is constitutional continuance and competitive federalism. The fourth is secure private property rights. That’s fundamental. It enables freedom. The fifth is strong families. The sixth is affordable, reliable energy. Then there’s fair and honest taxation and honest money. 

Secure property rights are fourth on my list. Why? Because secure property rights are fundamental to reward for genuine effort and creativity and for investing and taking risk. People won’t do that if they can’t keep what they earn. Secondly, secure property rights are necessary for people to exercise initiative. Thirdly, secure property rights are necessary for people to exercise responsibility and accountability, because if you can just steal it then why would you have any accountability? The fourth fundamental about secure property rights is freedom. It enables freedom. This has been well known for centuries. One of the reasons communism and socialism always fail is that they steal property rights. And it’s the reason, always, that personal free enterprise succeeds until the government—and this has happened repeatedly throughout history—gets too big and infringes on civil liberties. It destroys property rights and infringes on civil liberties. 

So it’s very important, and our founding fathers agreed, because our Commonwealth Constitution recognises and enshrines the importance of secure property rights. Under Section 51, Clause 31 of the Commonwealth Constitution, our Constitution, the Commonwealth may acquire property from a state or person providing it is on just terms. So reading that in context, Section 51 of the Constitution says: 

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: 

then one of them is listed, one of the many listed is – the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws; 

That is clear—’just terms’. This means that the Commonwealth, the federal government, must pay the person being dispossessed of rights to use their land reasonable and just compensation for the property the Commonwealth acquires. If the Commonwealth interferes with rights to use land, it must pay just-terms compensation. 

Generally, the states lack such property protections. Should a state acquire—or even steal, as has happened—land for a state, it does not need to provide compensation. Under state constitutions, no compensation is required. Even if a state acquires land for a Commonwealth purpose, the state is not bound under the Commonwealth Constitution to acquire it under just terms. This would then enable working around the constitutional protection for landowners, as I’m going to tell you with a story that is actually factual. 

This is a story about the worst theft of property rights in our country’s history. It happened during the lifetime of everyone in this chamber. In 2007, after John Howard was booted from office, I wrote a personal letter of thanks to him. I thought highly of John Howard. I thanked him and acknowledged him for his 30 years of work and for being at the forefront of the governance and policies introduced by the Keating and Hawke governments as well as has his own government afterward. Yet I didn’t know at the time something that I’m going to share with you. It was the former Liberal-National coalition government under Prime Minister John Howard who came up with the disgraceful mechanism of using the states to do the federal government’s dirty work for it. This is not new. This goes back to 1996-97. 

The story starts with the United Nations Kyoto protocol on climate variation and John Howard’s admitted desire to comply with it. He said he wouldn’t sign the 1997 Kyoto protocol but we would comply with it as a country. He or his government realised that people were not ready at that time to shut down industry, power stations, agriculture, travel and transport that produce carbon dioxide, so they came up with a different idea—a worse idea: stop the farmers clearing their land. Stop the farmers using their land as they were free to do. The Constitution, though, requires compensation. That would have been worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal government could not afford that, so the Howard government went around the Constitution, using the states to do the federal government’s dirty work of stealing farmers’ land to comply with the UN Kyoto Protocol, because John Howard’s government realised that they could cut the production of carbon dioxide or they could stop the clearing of land, which would be getting credit for giving more absorption of carbon dioxide. It was the same net effect. He did it without any scientific basis, as I’ll explain in a minute. 

One of the Howard government’s early responses was to do a deal with Rob Borbidge’s National Party government in Queensland. We had a National Party government in Queensland and three signatures from the senior National Party people, doing a deal with the Liberal-National federal government. They did a similar deal with Bob Carr, of the Labor Party in New South Wales, and then entrenched the deal with Peter Beattie in Queensland. Despite the denials under the Morrison government, this is still something the federal government relies upon for climate compliance. The irony is that John Howard betrayed himself as a champion of the Constitution and a champion of property rights that are fundamental to free enterprise societies. If you don’t believe me on this story, ask Peter Spencer, who nearly died protesting. Ask Dan McDonald and many farmers who are awake to this in Queensland and New South Wales. 

In 2013, six years after being booted from office, John Howard said, as the annual lecturer on climate at the London Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is a sceptic think tank opposed to the impacts of climate policy economically, that, after doing what he did to destroy our electricity sector and steal farmers’ property rights, on the topic of climate science he was agnostic. None of it was driven by climate science. Yet he led a government that stole farmers’ property rights and introduced a renewable energy target that is now gutting our electricity sector—shipping manufacturing overseas because of high electricity prices, driving families broke and causing inflation. His government concocted the National Electricity Market, which is really a racket. It’s not a market; it’s a bureaucracy that controls prices. Contrary to what people have been saying about Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, John Howard was the first leader of a major party and of a government to put in place an emissions trading scheme as policy.  

This set a pattern for Labor because, if you look at the history of climate policy and energy policy, the Liberal-National coalition introduces climate and energy initiatives and the Labor Party, when it comes in, then ramps them up. Have a look at the safeguard mechanism as a foundation for a global carbon dioxide tax. That was admitted when Greg Hunt, under Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership, introduced the safeguard mechanism in 2015. It wasn’t Chris Bowen—he just ramped it up. The UN’s net zero strategy was first introduced to Australia by Scott Morrison, and it was then ramped up by the Greens and the Labor Party. Carbon farming—or money farming—sterilises and steals and locks up the land, increasing the cost of feral animal management and noxious weed management for all the farmers in the area. Locking up land means it becomes full of weeds. For UN biodiversity policies, look at the Howard government again.  

Back to the Howard government, the 2007 Water Act and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority separated water entitlements from the land. Now we see in the Murray-Darling Basin—with the loss of property rights and water entitlements—the land is now married back up with water in the hands of corporate farmers on corporate farms. One of the aims of the Water Act, which is repeatedly stated throughout the act, is compliance with international agreements. What the hell is that doing in our legislation? 

Let’s have a look at the Labor state and federal governments. The Beattie Labor government in Queensland ramped up the stealing of farmers’ property rights by imposing more restrictions on farmers’ use of land, and so did Anna Bligh’s government. Campbell Newman’s government failed to restore property rights and just looked the other way. Annastacia Palaszczuk has since extended the stealing of property rights and entrenched it. The states have become adept at this method of stealing land from landowners, mostly as an attack on farmers, and not paying just terms compensation. Another way the states—Queensland in particular—do this is by using environmental reasons to justify placing restrictions on farmers’ use of land, reducing the worth of land, preventing it from alternative productive use and preventing the development of the land for agricultural or grazing purposes. For example, the Great Barrier Reef protection legislation—contrary to the evidence of farming having no impact on the Great Barrier Reef—is having a devastating impact on communities because of the unfounded and unscientific restrictions that the Labor government has placed on farming communities up and down the east coast of Queensland. This is destroying productive land—with woody weeds under native vegetation protection legislation—and turning productive land with a bright future into a monoculture of woody weeds and no grass, which increases erosion.  

This Labor federal government has declared war on farmers and primary producers. It’s hijacking prime agricultural land to install banks of ugly wind turbines and poisonous and dangerous solar panels, vandalising literally acres of otherwise productive food-producing land. Any person should be able to see the stupidity, the hypocrisy and the economic devastation of such actions. In its desperate attempts to virtue signal to the world that it is a conservation and climate-saving giant, the Labor government is hell-bent on covering the landscape with expensive and inefficient wind turbines, ugly banks of solar panels—and damn the consequences. We see huge complexes of solar and wind farms built with no connection to the grid. We see it in Victoria and we see it in Queensland.  

Now they are thinking, ‘We’d better build transmission lines.’ Transmission lines are going to chew up prime environmental habitat and farming. Now more than 100 square kilometres of koala habitat in Queensland is under threat from the developers of these destructive wind turbine projects, all in the name of so-called renewable energy and at the cost of the environment and the extinction of rare wildlife—another aspect of killing the environment to save it. Other damage to farming by the Labor government include stopping regional infrastructure spending to improve the productivity of the regions and stopping live cattle and live sheep exports.  

Farmers are hard pressed to stop the states, acting for the Commonwealth, from stealing land and attacking the property rights of farmers. The Labor government, in bed with the Greens and the teals, is pushing inhuman and antihuman policies, antienvironment policies and anti-Australian policies. Labor, Greens and the LNP, the Liberals and Nationals, are hell-bent on promoting projects that are destroying the land, destroying the environment, increasing unemployment, destroying the economy and pushing up the cost of living in Australia and reducing our security by exporting our major manufacturing. When it becomes too expensive to sip a latte in the city, even the teals might wake up to the fact that their lefty policies are making it too hard to continue living in what was the lucky country. 

If our farmers chuck it all in, this country is lost, and the Chinese can simply walk in and create a food bowl to feed Asia. I remind you that Thomas Jefferson said, ‘You can have farming without cities, but you cannot have cities without farming.’ No farmers, no Australia. I haven’t got time at the moment, but the stealing of property rights is not restricted to farmers. It is happening in urban environments, including Caboolture, near Brisbane. It is happening in Mosman, in Sydney. I fully support this motion from senators Colbeck and Cadell. It needs to go much further to encompass past theft of property and federal-state collusion enabling uncompensated theft of property rights with no just terms of compensation.  

/by

Australia turning into a spiderweb of high voltage transmission lines

,

It’s estimated that 28,000km of power lines will be required to help the government’s net-zero pipe dream.

In many places, these powerlines are being proposed over prime agricultural land with the owners having their property compulsorily resumed.

I spoke in support of a inquiry to give affected landowners a voice as the government bulldozes over them on their way off the wind and solar cliff.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to acknowledge the people in the gallery. My brothers and sisters in Queensland amongst the rural sector were at a property rights conference just last Friday. The stories about the so-called green power—wind and solar—are well and truly horrific.  

People are just starting to wake up to the blight that is coming upon this country. And it’s not just the city people paying for power; it’s rural landholders and farmers losing their land, losing their livelihoods and losing their health. The social, economic and moral impacts are enormous and devastating. And the anti-human Greens are responsible.  

I want to compliment the farmers who have come here today. Thank you so much, because what you’re showing is democracy in action. You’re putting pressure on the people down here in this chamber. We are paid by these people. We serve them.  

Recently I was in the wonderful Widgee community to listen to people about the Queensland government’s plan to destroy their national park and communities in order to build a high voltage powerline. Electricity transmission has become a controversial topic in recent years. The UN’s 2050 net zero—next to zero—needs a huge spend on wind turbines and solar panels, inevitably located in the bush and requiring tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to bring the power all the way to the cities. 

Long transmission lines were not needed when coal power kept lights on and fridges running, lifting our beautiful country into a period of prosperity and stability. 

The woke Left—the socialist Left—are destroying what works and replacing it with a short-lived, unscientific exercise in feelings. Net zero will need $50 billion spent just on transmission lines, every cent of which will come out of the pockets of everyday Australians and electricity users, including manufacturers. Queensland Premier Palaszczuk’s plan for a big battery in the Pioneer Valley calls for peak generation of five million kilowatts of electricity to be delivered into a 275-kilovolt transmission line. It’s absolute insanity, deceit and arrogance. Premier, where’s the costing on the several thousand kilometres of additional lines necessary to carry that amount of power into the grid without melting the wires? Are you forgetting that melted wires is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that was less than one per cent of the Pioneer project? 

It’s a fact that Katherine Myers from Victoria addressed the Property Rights conference in Gympie on the weekend. She told us that 80 per cent of solar and wind in western Victoria is not connected to the grid. You guys have blown that money and now you’re wanting to tear up farms to get it to the cities. Once wind and solar wear out, which takes only 12 years—and that’s the reason they’re called renewables, by the way—and taxpayers become jack of this ruinous drain on public finances the bush will be left a wasteland of glass, toxic chemicals, rusted steel towers, concrete and fallen wind turbines full of oil and dangerous chemicals. Do you know why they’re called renewables? Because you have to renew the bloody things every 12 years. In the space of building one power station you need to build four generations of solar and wind. That’s why they’re renewables. 

Wires melting is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that’s less than one per cent of the Pioneer project. Nothing stacks up—nothing. Their owners are Bahamian shelf companies and Chinese shelf companies, which have no intention of remediating this inevitable environmental disaster. Who will be left with this legacy of blown toxic panels and wind turbines? You will be. That’s why we need this inquiry to explore this issue. 

One Nation stands opposed to green vandalism underway in rural Australians’ backyards just so that wealthy, ignorant and uncaring inner-city anti-human Greens and teals can feel better about their inhuman energy consumption myths. Why do the Greens hate nature? Let’s look at their track record. They chop down trees to make way for steel and fibreglass monuments to the sky god of warming, who is celebrated with religious fervour by people who think themselves too clever for religion. Tens of thousands of hectares have been cleared and devastated for electricity interconnector easements. It’s a permanent scar across the landscape for no reason.  

The seabed is marked with two new interconnectors to get hydropower from Tasmania to energy deficient Victoria. Suicide is what’s going on with the Victorian government. They’re suiciding their state. Productive farmland and native grasses are covered in a carpet of glass and silicon reflectors. The sea is supposed to shine, not the countryside. Productive land is dug up as a graveyard for expired wind turbine blades. There’s strip mining of the seabed for rare earth minerals to make EVs and big batteries. Beautiful natural lakes in China are polluted with toxic chemical run-off from the processing of rare earths. The Greens look the other way with this environmental vandalism because ignoring environmental standards is essential to bring the price of solar down so that they can claim the price of solar is falling. 

This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. So there’s China’s environmental standards and the health of the locals, but who cares about children being devastated? Our beautiful bird life is sliced and diced in wind turbines across the country. If oil were the culprit, they would never shut up about birds. But with wind turbines: ‘Shoosh. No-one mention the dead birds.’ 

I make this offer to the Greens: come camping with me. Let me show you the beauty of this amazing countryside and then perhaps then you will be less likely to chop it down; cover it in glass, steel and concrete; pollute it; and lock it away so nobody but a chosen few can appreciate the beauty. One Nation is now the party of the environment. 

/7 Comments/by

Who profits from Inland Rail’s half billion dollar property purchases?

,

The Australian Rail Track Corporation is projected to spend $494 million dollars on acquiring property for the proposed Inland Rail route. Despite rumors of certain people buying land on the route prior to the purchases, the government refuses to release who they are acquiring the properties from with nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Transcript

Happens when you don’t think it through. Thank you, Senator Roberts over to you.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you all for appearing tonight. What is the current budget for property purchases for the Inland Rail project?

It’s $494 million.

494 million, thank you. In the last estimates, I asked Infrastructure Australia a simple question. Who owns the land being purchased by Inland Rail? And I received this response on notice. Quote, the full cost of the property acquired for the Inland Rail project will not be known until all 13 sections of the project are completed. The cost will eventually come out. That’s the end of the quote. Cost will eventually come out, but apparently ownership will not. Firstly, when is Inland Rail scheduled for completion?

Current schedule of completion in late 2026.

[Malcolm] 20.

2026.

2026, thank you. My office is aware of reports as to who bought land prior to the announcement of the Inland Rail alignment, which we of course pay no heed to. So is it the position of the Minister that the public will never be told who owned the land the Australian taxpayers just spent 494, or will spend $494 million buying, and that we’ll have to wait until 2026 or later to find out how much we paid for it?

Yeah, I think per that previous answer, it would not be our intent to disclose the information about individual landowners.

So the taxpayers are paying for something but won’t receive any any accountability for it until another four years, if it’s finished on time? So we can’t find out as representatives of the taxpayers. Okay, let’s move on. In 2010, the ARTC stated Inland Rail would not be cost effective if completed in 2021, but may provide a positive net value by 2035 against a projected cost of $9 billion if rail freight demand increased. In the 2015 business case briefing paper two, the ARTC found $16 billion in GDP increase over the first 50 years. The project tonight I understand we were told is now stated to have a total cost of $14.5 billion, with solid third party, independent assessments, at over $20 billion, some well over $20 billion. When was the last time the cost benefit of Inland Rail was calculated in terms of net present value? And specifically, what was the total financial benefit to the taxpayers over the payback period? And what is the payback period, and what project cost did you do the sums on?

Do you want to give business case?

Do you want me to take?

Yeah.

Yeah, okay. So since back in 2020 when the increased equity was provided, there was an update to the economic benefits. So there was a revised assessment that came out with a net $18 billion economic benefit over that same period, 50 years, that you mentioned. And in that sort of same timeframe, the Commonwealth Government also did some further studies that looked at some of the economic benefits that would be capitalised, not just from that $18 billion which is really associated with efficiency improvements in the supply chain, but then a further $13.3 billion that was found to be catalysed by the stimulation of further regional economic industry and development. So that was probably the the latest updates in that regard that were undertaken.

And perhaps I can just add the comment that we haven’t seen the full business case. Much of it has been redacted from memory. And the assumptions, in particular, just slight changes in the assumptions can dramatically affect the business case and all the claimed economic benefits. And we’re kept in the dark about some of the assumptions. So I’ll go on to the next question. The Inland Rail business case relies on a series of calculations about transit times, intermodal delays, train speed, track wear, projected freight volumes and revenue, route reliability, amongst many others. By way of example, the share of freight Inland Rail will attract supposedly on the Melbourne to Brisbane route will go from 26% currently to 62% by 2050. And that’s one of the massive assumptions. And these assumptions, models, and calculations are said to be commercially sensitive. So, as I’ve said a minute ago, they’ve not been made public and will not be made public. Is that a correct statement?

It’s exclusive.

Look Senator, the business case for Inland Rail was produced in 2015, which was the last one. Simon, do you want to make?

Yeah, it was certainly public. And I’m not sure exactly what assumption you’re looking at, Senator. It’s not-

Well, I’ll read them again. The transit times, intermodal delays, train speed, track wear, projected freight volumes and revenue, route reliability, amongst other things. And some of the reports that were submitted or made by some of the big four accounting firms or management consulting firms, they’re not available. And we understand that two reports contradict each other.

So Senator, the information that you went through is available. We can certainly, we could talk through it tonight or we could certainly come back to you outside of the session with that information.

We’d appreciate you coming back, that would be great.

Yeah, absolutely. I’m only aware of one. Sorry, I’m aware of one macroeconomic report to do with the assumptions around the GDP and also the market share figures, which was undertaken by the PWC Deloitte. EY undertook a more specific reasonable analysis. We’re not aware that they contradict. They were looking at quite different elements of the benefit streams of the programme.

Well, perhaps we could show you what we mean by that with the reports and with some documents, and you could at the same time as you can come back with your assessment. And we’re happy to arrange that with our office.

[Simon] And we’d been more than happy to do that, Senator.

Thank you very much. Minister, why is this project proceeding when the taxpayers are most likely to lose tens of billions of dollars if the taxpayers are not benefiting qui bono? So who is?

Well, I think based on the answers you’ve received and some of those things that’ll be taken on notice and subject to further conversations between you and the officers from ARTC, I think some of the assumptions underlying your questions may still be in contention. But obviously, the principle is that it’s a project worth backing and the government remains willing to do that for the good of the country. But obviously, further detail required to satisfy the questions you’ve asked so far. And hopefully the officers will give you the answers you’re after.

Okay, Chair, I’d just like to ask two questions, following up on what you asked. Thank you. The preferred alignment from the ARTC 2010 Melbourne-Brisbane alignment study became the final alignment in the 2015 programme business case. Is there any significant change between those two alignments? Because on a map they look the same.

The short answer is yes, that there were some minor adjustments. Off the top of my head, I’m probably couldn’t navigate through all of those. But the Inland Rail, route history document, does detail those and gives a lot of further detail. We can come back with some more if you need.

That’s on the website.

Yeah, that’s on the Inland Rail, the ARTC website, yep.

Okay, thank you. Last question to you. And this may be touching on something that Senator Van asked about. In the last estimates, I asked Major Transport and Infrastructure Projects about Inland Rail environmental impact assessments. And Ms. Hall, the First Assistant Secretary replied, the route has actually been set. This is a quote. The route has actually been set. The purpose of the environmental assessment processes are to give confidence to the communities that the environment is protected. So environmental impact assessments are still underway, and yet the route is set. Is it a statement of fact that the final Inland Rail route was decided before the environmental assessment of that route had even been started? So are you backfilling the project? Backfilling the EIS’s?

Senator, I think you’re referring to me. The route has been set. The purpose, as we’ve just discussed before, Minister, Mr. Helena has said is that an EIS process is designed to give assurance to the community, give assurance to the regulatory requirements. A coordinator general, for example, in regards to Queensland will set the conditions by which that piece of infrastructure needs to be built. So that is the purpose of an EIS process.

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

/by

The dream of an Australian family house is dying

, ,

One Nation rejects the dystopian future where all of the peasants live on top of each other in cramped city fringes. This shepherding together is designed to feed massive new urban rail networks to bring workers, or more accurately, feudal serfs, into Central Business Districts.

Transcript

There is no “family home on a block of land” in the future according to the Greens, Labor, the Liberal Party and their sell-out sidekicks the Nationals.

Not even a 5, 4 or 300 square metre block on which to raise a family.

The next generation will lose access to land, entirely.

Town planning now is based on everyday Australians being herded into intensive housing “bands”, located away from the elitist, inner-city bubble.

This shepherding together is designed to feed massive new urban rail networks to bring workers, or more accurately, feudal serfs, into Central Business Districts.

Once workers – or serfs – catch the train home, inner-cities become ghost towns filled with expensive restaurants and rats.

Cars are being phased out. Right now.

New housing precincts do not have roads wide enough for two cars to pass. They are being designed for a world where workers do not own cars.

Proposed building codes include 5 stories with no lift, lower ceilings, thinner walls, narrower corridors. Towers built to the 4 corners of the block, and, zero green space.

Although land is an asset that lasts forever, a cheap and nasty home unit lasts as long as the building does and then owners have nothing.

The Greens, Labor and the Liberal-Nationals say this is all that working Australians deserve!

The Morrison Government is pumping up housing prices to force young families into tiny housing.

How do parents raise healthy, happy children in a tiny unit tower that’s home to 20 other families, on a block of land that used to house one family?

One Nation rejects this dystopian future. This future society of human misery, squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding.

One Nation policies will ensure sensible population growth, building of water & energy capacity, and revival of manufacturing for a life worth living for all Australians.

We will not be divided.

We have one flag. We are One Community. We are One Nation.

/by

Department of Agriculture Questioned at Estimates on Fire Ant Eradication Program

, , ,

Farmers at Gatton and beyond are petrified of the spread of destructive fire ants. Fire ants ravage crops and if they get into animals, they drive them crazy with pain. Left unchecked, they’ll turn productive areas effectively barren.

I asked the Department of Agriculture about what we are doing to eradicate them. Unfortunately, it looks like there isn’t enough money allocated to eradicate the destructive fire ants.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] How much is it costing Australia in funding the fight against spread and ultimate eradication of fire ants?

[Mr Tongue] Senator, it’s approximately $450 million dollars. I’ll defer to my colleague Ms Laduzko.

[Mr Metcalfe] These are red imported fire ants?

Yeah, red imported fire ants.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got domestic fire ants?

[Mr Metcalfe] No, we’ve also got the yellow crazy ants as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve got a lot of ants.

[Mr Ludisco] The red imported fire ants particularly which are a particular problem in the Brisbane Valley.

[Malcolm Roberts] 400 million over what period?

[Ms Laduzko] Sorry, Senator Roberts, we have a ten year funding programme currently agreed across all States and Territories in the Commonwealth and the budgeted allocation for that current ten year programme, about which we’re nearly halfway through is 414 million.

[Malcolm Roberts] So about 41 million a year.

[Ms Laduzko] Yeah, roughly speaking.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How successful is the management and eradication programme?

[Ms Laduzko] We are four years into a sustained effort at eradicating an invasive ant that has got quite a wide spread. I think and I think I might’ve given this evidence last time to the committee which is we have been learning a lot more about the ant. It’s a very large scale eradication so we’ve been making progress but in the meantime, the programme which is actually led by the Queensland government has been trialling different ways of killing the ant through different bait combinations and technology so I’d have to say we’ve seen some positive signs and there are some learnings around eradication but the actual size of the task and whether it’s sufficiently funded are matters for current discussion.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you haven’t got any concrete measures other than that, you’ve just making progress? Not trying to be cheeky, I just would like to have something quantified. How do you assess progress? Because that’s an awful lot of money.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, assessing progress is an interesting question and partly we go through cycles of eradication and surveillance so we eradicate to a programme and then we go back and do surveillance to see how effective those measures have been. If you want specific information, I’d probably prefer to take it on notice because that would be what I would source from the program-leading Queensland government to make sure I’m accurate.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you.

[Mr Tongue] And Senator, just to describe there is the programme is run by an independent committee chaired by Wendy Crake who is a very distinguished authority in natural resource management matters.

[Malcolm Roberts] Queensland or Australia?

[Mr Tongue] Australia, Australia and as Ms Laduzko said, jointly funded and there is quite a significant amount of detail that we can provide you on notice about the roll out of the programme, how they’re measuring effectiveness, etc. It is just a very big eradication programme, that’s all.

[Malcolm Roberts] That would be useful because I’ve attended a meeting at Gatton, in the heart of the Valley, and the residents there were pretty upset that they don’t trust what the Queensland government is doing so yeah, I’d like to learn more about it, thank you.

[Mr Tongue] Certainly.

[Malcolm Roberts] How effective are similar overseas eradication programmes?

[Ms Laduzko] I think that it’s true to say, Senator, that nowhere has anyone successfully eradicated red imported fire ants. In fact, Australia is the only successful eradication outcomes and they were on smaller incursions that were, we were able to contain to port environments so we have successfully eradicated small outbreaks but it’s not my understanding that any other country has ever managed to eradicate.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is that ominous for the Valley?

[Ms Laduzko] Well, I think it gives us pause for thought around the size of the eradication and the funding commitment and what our long term strategy is but we do have it, you know, it’s, I think, there’s some stats that suggest if we’d done nothing from when we first saw it, it would already have largely covered the entirety of Australia by now and we have managed to keep it to a defined region.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay so in that sense, it’s effective.

[Ms Laduzko] In that sense, it’s effective.

[Malcolm Roberts] Or it may have delayed the overrun of Australia? We don’t really know yet.

[Ms Laduzko] That’s probably a fair call.

[Mr Tongue] Red imported fire ant is viable in 99 per cent of the Australian continent, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s actually being done on this in Australia? Are you just containing it or you’re trying to eradicate it? Sounds like you’re trying to eradicate it.

[Mr Tongue] It is an eradication programme. It has been going under various guises for a number of years now. In fact, this is a ten year programme. Prior to that, I think we’ve done a seven year programme ahead of that so it’s an eradication programme.

[Malcolm Roberts] How far are we into the ten years? Excuse me for interrupting.

[Mr Tongue] We would be between year four and year five.

[Malcolm Roberts] So we’re halfway through.

[Ms Laduzko] A little less than halfway.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, okay. So what’s being done in terms of the actual on the ground, what’s happening? I know the Queensland government is…

[Mr Tongue] Sorry, it’s quite a complex programme and it’s very large. The nuts and bolts part of it is we’ve agreed a programme for how we approach the eradication efforts so we have zoned certain areas and they’ve embedded a sentiment of moving from west to east with rolling eradication efforts and suppressing in those other areas. I haven’t got to so hard eradication, suppression, suppression, rolling forward but we also have to put a lot of investment in the edge to make sure it doesn’t further escape. The west to east model goes from rural land through to urban environments and that changes the nature of how you do eradication and how you engage the community.

[Malcolm Roberts] And it makes it difficult.

[Ms Laduzko] It does make it a bit more difficult, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s hard to tell where are we. At the moment, we seem to be stabilising in your opinion?

[Ms Laduzko] I think at the moment we have certainly, you’d have to say we haven’t allowed it to become worse and we’ve managed, I think, some success in the semi-rural areas. The question will be, as we get closer to those urban environments.

[Malcolm Roberts] What else needs to be done? What more needs to be done?

[Ms Laduzko] I think that’s an open question. You know, the scale of the response is enormous and it often comes down to funding and commitment of participants. Once you’re in an urban environment, everyone needs to be willing and engaged.

[Malcolm Roberts] So are there enough resources to achieve eradication?

[Ms Laduzko] Not something I’d like to comment on right now, Senator, we’re going through a bit of a review. Part of the resourcing question goes to what other strategies we can adopt. Is the technology moving ahead of us? Is the baits, are the baits becoming more effective? A few things like that so I think that’s probably a question perhaps you might like to pose in maybe next session when we’ve done a bit of our own efficiency review.

[Mr Tongue] And I should add, Senator, that it is a science-driven programme so we’re drawing on the best possible science we can. We’re trying to do something, as you’ve alluded to, that hasn’t been done anywhere else in the world. It is success to contain it at some level, it is success to contain it because it is a uniquely adapted little ant that really can move quite swiftly if left uncontained. The challenges around the urban areas, you know, baits, poisons, schools, backyards, you know, those sorts of things are quite difficult. We are also finding, I think in the programme, that the cycle of wet and dry, particularly in that kind of area of Southeast Queensland, can frustrate efforts, you know, lay baits, it rains, all of that work is lost. You go back again. So finding the kind of rhythm, the drum beat that will beat it is something that’s just under constant review. It is an enormous eradication programme and as Ms Laduzko says we’re re-looking at it at the moment and governments will need to make decisions.

[Mr Metcalfe] Not with a view for stopping it.

[Mr Tongue] Not with a view for stopping it.

[Mr Metcalfe] But with a view of how we do it, can we do it better?

[Mr Tongue] Can we do it better? If we up the cash burn rate, would we go faster? If we slowed the cash burn rate, will we do better? Some of those questions, you know. What is the right modality to get rid of it?

[Malcolm Roberts] Before I ask you my next question, it probably is associated with the next question, but just make the comment, not having a go at you but when people use the word ‘science’ around here, I usually start digging because it’s just usually opinion and no science. And in Queensland, farming is being devastated by the Queensland Labour government, citing science but being nowhere near science and they’re destroying whole communities, whole regions and farms so I just make that point. I’d like to see the science rather than believe it.

[Mr Tongue] Sure.

[Malcolm Roberts] So moving on that, on what basis are federal monies provided to the States to assist in these programmes? Because listening to a forum at Gatton, people seem be questioning the Queensland State government’s motives. Is there a different formula, for example, for stabilising and containing versus eradicating?

[Mr Tongue] There is a couple of ways to answer that. In the environment we work in when we do eradication responses, like for things that aren’t yet established, we have agreed deeds where States and Territories and the Commonwealth and industry, where relevant, have an approach they use for eradication and how they cost share that. The Reefer eradication programme we’re talking about started in advance of us having an appropriate deed structure to use so it’s run a little bit differently to other eradication responses but in essence, for us, we have a partnership agreement with the Queensland government that sets out milestones that need to be met in order for us to provide funding to a schedule.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there are conditions attached?

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, yep but consistent with many of these what are largely termed environmental eradication responses, the Commonwealth is contributing 50 per cent of the cost.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. So is this in any way an enduring money spinner for the States?

[Ms Laduzko] A money spinner? No, I wouldn’t characterise it that way.

[Malcolm Roberts] Could they manipulate it by taking various strategies, for example containment versus eradication, just to prolong it? That was a concern of constituents in Gatton area.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, you can see how that comes ’cause it gets to a point where in all eradications, this applies in small ones, large ones, you have to make a concluded position about whether you think eradication remains feasible and cost-effective. At the moment, we are signed up to an eradication programme.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

[Mr Tongue] And because of the structure of it, I would argue, Senator, how would I put this? All the jurisdictions involved, other than Queensland, have a huge interest in ensuring that the programme is running well because they’re all on the hook to fund it and so it would be very difficult for Queensland to manipulate a circumstance with the gaze of all the other jurisdictions upon it as well as the community where, if you like, they were turning this into some sort of money spinner.

[Malcolm Roberts] So what’s different about Queensland?

[Mr Metcalfe] That’s a very open question, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] Apart from the fact that we win State of Origin very often.

[Mr Metcalfe] Well, that’s right, yeah. You’re talking to a Queenslander here, of course.

[Mr Tongue] So this eradication is just, is different because of scale and it’s different because it’s outside what we know as the deed structure. So what we have is risk sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth, the States and Territories and industry, in the agricultural industries, they’re known as the plant deed and the animal deed, and they set up arrangements where we share risk and depending on the nature of the effort that needs to go into deal with a response to some pest or disease or weed, the scale of Commonwealth investment changes and those arrangements are managed by Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia and they’re bodies that, if you like, sit outside government and outside industry but they work across to manage those deeds. In this instance, we don’t have that arrangement so we’ve set up this independent style committee.

[Ms Laduzko] Just a slight qualification, we do but that arrangement came into place after we started.

[Mr Tongue] After we started this. This one’s slightly unusual and also scale, it’s vastly different.

[Ms Laduzko] And sorry, Senator, can I just correct something? I said 414 million, it’s 411.4. I think I was just truncating numbers.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, I appreciate the accuracy. And you’re going to send us some details on how you’re assessing progress? In a quantified way.

[Ms Laduzko] Yes, if you’d like to put them through on notice and we’ll answer to that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Quantified.

[Mr Tongue] Yep.

[Ms Laduzko] Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

[Chair] Oh, right on time, Senator Roberts.

/by

Native Title Legislation Amendment

,

Yesterday I spoke on an amendment to the Native Title legislation. While I support anything that removes complexities, the government still hasn’t promised to give farmers restoration or compensation of their property rights.

Make no mistake, farmers property rights have been stolen by governments to comply with international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement. They must have restoration or compensation.

/by

North Australia Gutted by Government Mess

, , ,

Transcript

[Marcus] Malcolm Roberts, good morning to you, Malcolm?

[Malcolm] Good morning, Marcus, how are you doing?

[Marcus] I’m okay. First thing first. I wanna play you something back from a couple of weeks ago when you and I had a discussion on this radio programme, are you ready?

[Malcolm] Yes, I am.

[Marcus] Okay.

[Malcolm] Trump is in the box seat, he knows what he’s doing.

[Marcus] All right, you wanna bet me a bottle of wine on this? Australian wine.

[Malcolm] I definitely do but not yet, I’m very happy to send you a bottle of Stanthorpe wine if you win, but Trump is still in the box seat, mate.

[Marcus] Oh, Malcolm.

[Malcolm] Trump is coming home.

[Marcus] Hang on, Malcolm, Malcolm, Malcolm. No he’s not in the box seat.

[Malcolm] Yes, I haven’t seen the other, any headlines tonight, but he has got a process in play that’s been done before in the United States, it’s been upholding the constitution, it’s all proven and that’s underway and it will be unfolding in the next few weeks.

[Malcolm] I’m serious, Marcus.

[Marcus] I know you are, that’s the worry.

[Malcolm] I love the bet but I’m serious.

[Marcus] All right, let’s get on to some other issues. The Northern Australian agenda, the Torres Straits, Horn Island, Thursday Islands, Senate Select Committees on the Government’s agenda for Northern Australia in a nutshell, not going anywhere and deeply disappointing. What are the issues preventing development in Northern Australia, Malcolm?

[Malcolm] Have a listen to these, energy prices, property rights and land tenures, infrastructure, water, transport, telecommunications, a hopeless jumble of government services, all three layers of the government that’s state, federal, and local are not working together, there’s massive duplication, massive waste, huge gaps in service delivery. Now those things are occurring right throughout Australia.

And so how can we expect a development of productive capacity here in the North where there’s low population and lack of infrastructure, when the Southern areas of New South Wales, the rest of our country are being gutted by the same things, the destruction of productive capacity. And so what we’re really seeing up here, I mean, you, you’ve got problems in New South Wales I understand with ferries and trains that are built overseas and we have the same.

In Brisbane Queensland, we’ve had trains built overseas by both the liberal and labour governments in the past, they’ve come here with faults in them that had to be fixed. We have the ability, we just have lost the productive capacity because our governments, state and federal have destroyed that productive capacity.

[Marcus] I heard something, yeah, sorry, Malcolm, I heard something really interesting yesterday. In Victoria, and I know that Dan Andrews has copped a fair bit this year, trying to keep his constituents safe, but in Victoria to their credit, they have public transports, whether it’s buses, various trams, whatever, running around saying, “Proudly manufactured in Victoria.” Why is it that in Victoria, they can make their trams and their trains and their public transport infrastructure there but in New South Wales, in Queensland, we cannot.

[Malcolm] Well, I wonder how old those trams are because you know, our productive capacity is being destroyed over the last few decades, Marcus and I just wonder how long, how old those trams are. They still got the ability to make those trams? I don’t know. And you know, Victoria lost the Ford production facilities for cars, they’ve lost the Toyota production facility for cars, had lost various General Motors facilities, we haven’t got that productive capacity anymore. And so Victoria has done a very bad job.

Victoria has shut down it’s large power stations, which now make it vulnerable and dependent on New South Wales. I mean, this is a mess, our whole country and it’s a security issue, and it is a dead set security issue.

[Marcus] JobSeeker, my understanding from some stories floating around this morning, again, JobSeeker is blown out. In relation to costs, it’s gonna cost our economy billions of dollars more. I don’t know who’s doing the maths or the accounting treasury, but again, we see that job seekers, JobSeeker, the federal government’s plans through COVID 19 will end up costing more in the longer term.

[Malcolm] One of the things we have to start facing is the reality that state and federal governments have made a mess of the coronavirus, real mess of the way they’ve handled it. And I’ll give you some examples about JobSeeker in a minute up here in Queensland and especially in the North. But you know, Taiwan, Marcus have done by far the best job in the world, they’ve had no decrease in their economy, they’re bubbling along at the same rate as normal.

Our economy has been smashed and same with most economies. Taiwan, what they’ve done is they’ve tested people rigorously, they’ve traced people and they’ve quarantined people. They have isolated the sick and the vulnerable. We have shut down everyone. I mean, that is not the way you handle a pandemic. Now, initially, because it looks so bad because remember the people dying in Italy, we had to do something like that.

So we said to the government, “There is your open cheque, “just go for it, “do whatever you want.” That’s what we need to do when under such a crisis. When we realised, and we, but we said to them, “We’ll come looking for you “and holding you accountable,” when we realised that it wasn’t as bad as thought and then the total number of deaths in many countries around the world has not increased, the age deaths in Australia is lower than in the past years, so the total deaths have not increased, it’s not been what we’ve, what we were afraid of and that’s welcome news, the government hasn’t changed the tact.

And we’re still locked where we were until very recently locking down people. And we’re now, the coronavirus is still out there, we haven’t got a plan for managing the damn thing, and we’re still being managed by the Coronavirus. Victoria is still doing that. So what we have to do is actually look at what’s going on and come up with the plan. Never has the state or any federal government come up with the plan, never.

[Marcus] All right, the UK Climate Ambition Summit, we know that Scott Morrison was refused, well, basically, our nation is in the cold and all of these summits, you and I will disagree on the reasons why we’ve been cheating our way through our Kyoto agreements now for all- God, probably the best part of the last decade. But you and I differ on this, but just your thoughts on it.

[Malcolm] Well, it’s just another gabfest. The fortunate thing is that unlike all the other gabfests, there isn’t a huge transport demand pushing all these leaders together and producing carbon dioxide, which I know is got no problem, but they’re producing a hell of a lot of carbon dioxide to get to where they’re going and nothing comes out of it of any good.

And what we see is the United Nations pressuring nations to increase their carbon dioxide cast, which is insane, there’s no data to drive that, and Scott Morrison is now being pushed, and I think he’s relented and he is no longer going to use the Kyoto credits, that John Howard, stole, John Howard’s government, stole these credits, stole farmers’ property rights to get those credits, now we’re not even gonna use them. So we’ve got farmers owed somewhere between a hundred and $200 billion worth of compensation, or we need a restoration of their property rights right around the country.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] And so what we’re seeing is that the UN drove that stupidity from John Howard’s government, drove the state government in New South Wales and Queensland in particular to decimate their farmers, no compensation paid, and now we can’t even use them?

I mean, this is insane. And China’s commitment under these UN agreements is zero. They will continue in not only at their current levels of carbon dioxide output, they will continue increasing them. And so what they’ve got is their productive capacity continuing to grow by using our coals for their steel in the construction

[Marcus] Well I don’t know whether they’re gonna use, they’re going to use our coal considering what we’ve heard in the last week, Malcolm?

[Malcolm] Well, I think they will have to get back to it because they use coal for power generation, which is thermal coal exports. They’re about half of Japan’s intake of coal from Australia. Japan buys about almost $10 billion worth of coal from Australia, thermal coal for power stations, and China only buys 4 billion, but the key is in the metallurgical coal exports from Australia.

India has, buys $10 billion worth of coal, China just a fraction under that 9.7, Japan $7.4 billion worth. China needs our coal because our metallurgical coal for steel-making markets is the best in the world.

[Marcus] All right, I just want to move on to trade with China. It’s not getting any better, you know, we know that we’ve got a number of tariffs and a number of blockades if you like placed or put in place by Beijing, we’ve got Barley exports, we’ve got tariffs on other major exports including now, as I mentioned just before, the possibility that our coal will sit idle off the coast of China and not be allowed into the country. When is it gonna stop and what can we do about it, it’s not getting any better?

The reason China is picking on us I believe is that we have been very, very weak to ourselves. I’m not talking about standing up to China anyway, I’m talking about the Chinese are a totalitarian dictatorship, they are bullies. They’re being very subtle in the way they’re bringing people into the fold around the countries, through their belts and roads initiative, which Victoria has signed up to.

But what they can’t see, a bully always picks on the weakest first and the most vulnerable. Now China sees Australia as being allied with the United States. But China also sees Australia wrecking our own productive capacity. They see Australia kowtowing to UN agreements, ceding our sovereignty, giving up the control of our resources, the control of our productive capacity in this country.

China has said to the UN, “To hell with you lot, “we are going to continue our industrialization, we are ceding our jobs. we’re actually sending our jobs to China as we destroy our productive capacity. The Chinese also see us exporting coal and burning coal at very high cost in this country because of artificially inflated regulations that have destroyed the price of coal in this country, coal fired power.

And so what China is saying is we’re destroying ourselves. We’re subsidising the Chinese to build expensive renewable energy, solar, and wind in this country, which is destroying our electricity network even more, and then we’re seeing, they’re seeing us see that and they’re saying, “These people are contradicting “their own sovereignty, “they’re destroying their own values. “These people don’t know “what the hell they’re doing. “They have weakened their right.” And that’s what they’re doing. They’re sending us a very strong signal, “Get your house in order.”

[Marcus] And the human face of this, of course, 66 ships, 500 million to a billion dollars worth of coal currently sitting idle. We’ve got a thousand seafarers stuck out there. I mean, they’ve got families but hopefully, there’ll be some sort of a breakthrough. We need cool heads to prevail and I mean, I see, I tend to agree with you Malcolm, I can see, I can’t see China holding out for much longer.

[Malcolm] You know, it’s a very good point you’ve raised though the human face of it, but it’s true, but they’re not players in the trade dispute, the victims. Many haven’t been allowed to disembark apparently for about 20 months due to COVID, Marcus I think and the maximum time legally for seamen to be at sea is 11 months. The situation is deteriorating apparently for physically and mentally for these people.

There’s a limited supply of food and medicines and so, yeah, good on you for bringing up the human aspect. These people are caught in the middle and they’ve done nothing wrong.

[Marcus] All right, just wanna finish with lobster seafood. I mean, that’s how I plan on, well, look, to be honest, I plan on washing down a bit of lobster and a couple of prawns and some crab over Christmas with the wine you’re going to send me, but tell me, how can we help out our rock lobster industry?

[Malcolm] Marcus, the election date will be settled when the vice president, Mike Pence selects the candidate, selects the votes in

[Marcus] All right, so

[Malcolm] On January 6th

[Marcus] I’ll be having

[Malcolm] That will be A new year celebration

[Marcus] A new year one I like it, fair enough. All right, but let’s talk lobsters, mate.

[Malcolm] Yes, it was predicted that customers would eat more than 35 tonnes of lobster this year compared to just six and a half tonnes in the previous year. But now apparently, you need to get in early, there’s a limit of four per person I’ve been told. They’re now a bargain at $20 each because the Chinese are not taking our lobsters, so what we’re saying is get into the lobsters and go for it. Now I’m not a lobster fan, I prefer the Queensland mud crab, best seafood you can get,

[Marcus] Fair enough.

[Malcolm] But that’s my deal, but yeah, grab, go for the lobsters and wash it down with some Hunter Valley wine or some Stanthorpe wine from Queensland and enjoy your Christmas.

[Marcus] And shop Australian over Christmas too. And that’s something that Pauline and I talked about on the programme on Tuesday, we need to ensure that we buy up as much Australian wine as much Australian seafood and beef and support Australian industries during this time.

[Malcolm] So right, thank you very much for, for reminding us of that, Marcus. And I’d like to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and happy new year

[Marcus] Thank you.

[Malcolm] And the same to all your team, Justin and everyone, and all your listeners, a very happy new year and a very Merry Christmas.

[Marcus] You too, mate. We’ll talk again in 2021, we’ll finally settle the issue of Trump V Biden and I look forward to, I dunno a case or a bottle of something from you Malcolm.

[Malcolm] If Mike Pence goes away, I think he will and the constitutional precedence then I think you’ll be sending me a bottle of the wine, mate but if I’m wrong, I’ll be very happy to send it to you.

[Marcus] All right, mate, great to chat to you. Thank you so much for your time this year, we’ll catch up again in 2021.

[Malcolm] Look forward to it, thanks very much, Marcus and Merry Christmas.

[Marcus] All right, you too, mate. There he is, Malcolm Roberts, One Nation Senator, and look obviously, you know, me and a number of my listeners don’t always agree with everything Malcolm comes up with. But he does talk sense on, I think when it comes to things like industrial relations, reform, our trade issue with China and all these sort of stuff. I think he’s a little more moderate on that than say Scomo and his mob are, and I just enjoy Malcolm, my chats with him. We, we’re not always gonna agree. But gee that wine, will taste nice.

/by

Kyoto carryover credits stolen from farmers

, ,

Transcript

The Kyoto carryover credits were created by stealing property rights from farmers. Farmers lost the rights to manage their land and vegetation without compensation. The purchase of freehold land has been turned into a leasehold agreement with government controlling the land use through overburdensome and crippling regulations.

The decision by the Howard government to steal property rights without compensation remains to this day an unjust and morally reprehensible decision that the Morrison government refuses to reverse.

It has been estimated that to compensate farmer for their loss of rights would cost in excess of $200 billion. If this government is unwilling to compensate then they must IMMEDIATELY restore full property rights to farmers so they can recover their productive capacity.

Farmers are the best custodians of their own land.

/by