Climate Fail: Influential Aussie Politician Demands Cheaper Energy and a New Coal Plant

One Nation senator Pauline Hanson and climate skeptic Malcolm Roberts

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Influential Australian politician Pauline Hanson, leader of minority party One Nation, has demanded infrastructure projects including a new coal power plant in return for supporting government tax cuts.

Pauline Hanson holds out for infrastructure over tax cuts

JUNE 17, 2019

Pauline Hanson is holding firm against supporting the government’s full tax package, saying she wants Scott Morrison to focus on improving infrastructure instead.

The One Nation leader last week said she wanted the government to back her plans for a royal commission into family law, the implementation of the Bradfield water scheme, and a coal-fired power station before she negotiated on tax cuts.

Today, she confirmed she had not had any discussions with the Prime Minister or cabinet ministers about their signature packages and had not changed her mind on supporting the bill.

“In full, no, I won’t be … I won’t be,” she told the Nine Network today.
“Actually I haven’t been approached by Mathias Cormann, there has been no negotiations that have gone on. I haven’t spoken to the Prime Minister and my office had a meeting with the Treasury last Friday to discuss the tax cuts.

“Now, the feedback that I have got is that they can do it one of two ways. We can either go with the tax cuts or we can go with infrastructure projects which will do exactly the same.

“But at the end of the day, we are going to end up with infrastructure that will deliver us cheaper electricity, security, and also the water security that we need as well for the country. Instead of increasing population.”

Read more (paywalled):

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has consistently supported an end to green energy mandates, to make Australian energy more affordable. Her climate views are advised by prominent Aussie climate skeptic Malcolm Roberts, who is likely to win a One Nation federal senate seat (votes are still being counted).

The Conservative Morrison government does not have a majority in the Australian Federal Senate. The government holds 33 seats, eight short of a 39 vote majority. Pauline Hanson’s party has at least two senate seats, so her support may be crucial to pass government legislation opposed by the strong left wing presence in the senate.

The modified Bradfield scheme Pauline is referring to is a large scale irrigation scheme backed by Australia’s CSIRO, to capture the vast runoff from reliable tropical watersheds in Australia’s North, and pipe the water to dry farmlands in the south. The third item Pauline is demanding is a review of child custody laws, to address a perceived bias against fathers in family court judgements.

Correction (EW): Nick points out I’m mixing up my water schemes. The following is a better description of the modified Bradfield Scheme, which does not have a CSIRO endorsement.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Broderick
June 17, 2019 4:25 pm

“The government holds 33 seats, eight short of a 39 vote majority. ” ? (39-33=6)
Do they have a different kind of math down under ? lol

Reply to  Mark Broderick
June 18, 2019 4:12 am

That is the Senate, we have two houses same as USA and your president does not have control of both houses either … do I put lol on the end as well.

Bryan A
Reply to  LdB
June 18, 2019 10:12 am


Reply to  Mark Broderick
June 19, 2019 2:29 pm

“The government holds 33 seats, eight short of a 39 vote majority.”

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen- the average level of intelligence and mathematical literacy on this blog.

paul courtney
Reply to  Bruce
June 20, 2019 11:26 am

Bruce: To get the average, you must have other samples, right? Or do you use climate statistics the Mann way, first determining that all samples are “non-conforming” except the one that fits your theory?

Reply to  paul courtney
June 21, 2019 7:07 pm

Most of the posts on here are stupid.

Reply to  Bruce
June 22, 2019 3:22 pm

Especially yours.

June 17, 2019 5:06 pm

“…demanding is a review of child custody laws, to address a perceived bias against fathers in family court judgements.”

If that comment applied to the USA, it wouldn’t be a perceived bias.

June 17, 2019 5:25 pm

I like her already!

June 17, 2019 5:49 pm

Yes a new efficient coal fired power plant! AU should have the cheapest power in the world but instead, it has the most expansive due to the Church of Moronic Climate Zombies.
As an aside, check this ”science” special on Qanda last night. See if you can stomach it…Talk about an echo chamber!

Sweet Old Bob
June 17, 2019 5:57 pm

Well, well … Someone has common sense in Australia !

June 17, 2019 6:22 pm

Note: completely off topic for this post, but the ‘test, test, test’ post failed – when attempting to view, message said “page not found, nobody home, please go away”

June 17, 2019 6:25 pm

Sadly, her opinions are irrelevant. Her party (One Nation) controls only 2 x senate seats, and the government will need 5 votes from the cross-benchers. And unfortunately, all of the other cross benchers are moonbat leftists except One Nation and one other (Cory Bernardi).

Reply to  ggm
June 17, 2019 8:27 pm

Not familiar with down-under politics, but do the Party members always vote in lock-step with its leadership? In the US – and the UK, it seems – you can sometimes break-free some of the opposition (especially if there is a benefit to them). In this case, who needs the electricity and the water, and what is the Party of their representatives?

Reply to  jtom
June 18, 2019 4:25 am

Works pretty much the same you are expected to vote along party lines otherwise it would be difficult to hold government. You struggle get pre-selected even as a sitting member if you buck the party too much. So next election you would find yourself having to contest it as an independent even thought you are the sitting member effectively the party would appoint someone else to run for your seat.

John Teisen
Reply to  jtom
June 18, 2019 3:12 pm

Reply to Jtom –

The Australian Labor Party follows the Kim Jong-Un approach. It is owned and controlled by the Trade Union movement and demands total obedience from Members of Parliament and Senators. They only get into office by first being approved as candidates by the Trade Unions, and to achieve that end they must have been employed by the Unions or by their law firms for decades.

If any Labor MP or Senator decides to break ranks and vote against Party lines they are immediately ejected from the Party, and although they stay in Parliament they have to become Independents and are treated as pariahs by their former peers.

To go against Party lines is political and career suicide – a route few dare take. I know of only one Senator who did that over the last 30 years. He was close to retirement and didn’t care. They treated him shamefully, but unlike Kim they couldn’t shoot him at dawn, although I’m sure a lot of Labor people would have wanted to.

It’s hard to imagine a political Party could be so close to Communism in Australia but it is true, and because of they have often been in power the Labor Party has stitched up to system to make it almost impossible to change the electoral dynamics. The only Party that is worse is the Greens which are even closer to Soviet Communism and totalitarianism, yet they manage to garner at least 10% of the vote at every election. Such is the deception that emanates from the dark arts of left-wing politics in Australia.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  John Teisen
June 18, 2019 8:05 pm

I’m not yet convinced anybody votes for the Green party directly. I believe it’s our preference system, which means a vote for Labour is a vote for Green and vice versa. Also many of the minor parties will sell their preferences to the Greens.

Reply to  ggm
June 18, 2019 4:18 am

cory n pauline can at least slow em up and make em look like the fools they are on some things.
and the bradford scheme shoulda been done decades ago the cost would have been more than recovered and the land and people benefitted greatly.

getting palucikz or whatever her name is OUT of qld is the next step
then andrews out of Vic next election and Aus might manage to get ahead
dont hold much hope for poor old SA anymore.

June 17, 2019 6:28 pm

“The modified Bradfield scheme Pauline is referring to is a large scale irrigation scheme backed by Australia’s CSIRO, to capture the vast runoff from reliable tropical watersheds in Australia’s North, and pipe the water to dry farmlands in the south.”

CSIRO does not support the Bradfield scheme, modified or not. No scientists do. The scheme linked here proposes dams in the north, but they do not divert the East flowing rivers of Qld, or pipe it to the South. They are conventional local irrigation schemes.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2019 1:35 am

Hmm, ABC, “Fact Check” and “Experts”, three suspicious ingredients. Changing the climate is maybe a dubious concept, but not irrigation.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 18, 2019 4:15 am

Not sure anyone gives a rats about the scientists it doesn’t make any economic sense which is why it can’t get off the ground.

June 17, 2019 7:41 pm

While some of the Pauline Hanson One Nation policies by themselves are good, overall she and her candidates are an embarrassment.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Rich
June 17, 2019 10:26 pm

They are the only sane party in Australia. They haven’t fallen for the global warming scam. Malcolm Roberts just got confirmed as another Australian senator.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 18, 2019 4:21 am

oh HOORAY! i was so pd off when they pulled the rug out from him before.
Paulines As honest a pollie as ever existed but shes not the sharpest knife at public speaking
Malcolm IS bright and gets the point across very clearly

High Treason
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 18, 2019 9:52 pm

Bloody ripper that Malcolm Roberts is back. We were pretty confident- looking at the probable preferences for other minor conservatives, even excluding Clive Palmer, Malcolm was going to be a good chance.
The Greens and the CSIRO will not be able to cop 6 years of relentless pressure from Malcolm. Who would want to be the chairperson of the CSIRO knowing that Malcolm will be demanding evidence that human CO2 causes catastrophic global warming from day one. They managed to bluff 1 year, but there is no way they can bluff their way around 6 years.
3 times we drove down to Canberra to be present when the CSIRO were requested to front up and present the evidence. 3 times, their chair was empty.
Time for a Royal Commission. Then they will have to front up and they will be in deep excrement if they refuse to give evidence. Personally, the whole outfit needs to be defunded until they stump up. Perhaps this will be the time they have to out the climate hoax and confess they were pressured in to lying. Yes, it is finger pointing time.
We know Malcolm Roberts very, very well. He is arguably the best political figure we have had in Australia for 50 years.

Geoff Sherrington
June 17, 2019 8:00 pm

That Q&A video referenced by Mike contains material suitable for starting investigations of criminal misrepresentation before one of the formal bodies Australia has for investigation of corruption in its various forms.
For an example, take the question that quoted broadcaster Alan Jones at about 1:11:40, as quoting 3 numbers (here summarised for brevity- you must refer to the video for accuracy). They were that CO2 is 0.04% of the volume of our atmospheric gases; that 3% of that 0.04% is contributed by Man; and that Australians contribute about 1.3% of the global total.
After a lot of words, including that on the rest of his numbers Jones was wrong, panellist Karoly conceded that points 1 and 3 were more or less correct. So let us go to point 2.
Here, Karoly changed the question and answered the question he invented. The original question arose because there are 2 ways in which CO2 is added to the atmosphere over time. There are natural processes involving sources such as the decay of living matter after death. This flow from natural sources is about 97% of the daily total. The contribution from Man, estimated from weights of fossil fuels burned, for example, is 3% of the flow. So Jones was correct.
Karoly made up a scenario that is also correct, but not what was asked. He noted that pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280 ppm, now 400 ppm, the 120 ppm increase being 40% of the original 280 ppm. Karoly then maintained that the correct figure that Jones should have used was 40%, not the Jones 3%. He asserted bluntly that Jones was in error (he was not). That was the Karoly debate tactic, but it was not science.
The science answer is that yes, 3% of the flow of CO2 into the atmosphere is from Man-made sources. Where Karoly has been obfuscatory is his statements on Q&A that “…that 40% is due to human activity” and that “We know that for absolute certain.”
The science says that we do NOT know that for certain. This point is at the center of the warmist scare campaign. One of the main, fundamental impediments in climate science is a way to differentiate natural processes from anthropogenic ones.
There are some indirect methods for tagging CO2 and its poaths, such as its carbon isotope composition. The proposals (as pushed by F. Engelbeen, for example) are far from certain, far from accepted, far from specific.
So little is known about the quantitative aspects of CO2 flow from very many sources to very many sinks. We are not yet sure if we know of all natural sinks and sources, let alone an accurate figure for their fluxes, that it is simply foolish to assert that “We know that for absolute certain”.
Under the Q&A circumstances, a reasonable person would infer that the Karoly statements listed here were made with the intent to convince people that there was scientific certainty, when a person in his position would have been aware that there was far from scientific certainty. He would not have been doing his job if he failed to notice the many uncertainties.
So, the conclusion that a reasonable person would draw is that he acted to deceive.
Now, go for it, you serious litigants. Geoff.

John F. Hultquist
June 17, 2019 8:14 pm

North America has its audacious proposals.
One is called the North American Water and Power Alliance. This idea involved diverting water from some rivers in Alaska through Canada via the Rocky Mountain Trench and other routes to the US and would involve 369 separate construction projects.
There is another, called GRAND, for Great Recycling and Northern Development. This one involves James Bay and many other projects to get their “grand canal.”

J Mac
June 17, 2019 8:48 pm

I’m sure Pauline Hanson is getting the modern equivalent of ‘Burn the Witch!’ from the socialist left.
I like her moxie!

Reply to  J Mac
June 18, 2019 4:21 am

No most of the lefties and socialist are still in hiding in Australia they have been getting quite a beating since the election because everyone has basically had enough. There is a massive pushback against them which basically started about the time a group of idiot greens decided to travel into Queensland coal country to protest against Adani.

The disconnect between the inner city elitists and government employees who live in there million dollar mansions but want everyone else to pay for climate action sort of got put in sharp focus. As a few have said lets put an annual tax on all the trendy inner city suburbs and we will even spend all that money on climate action but it starts with that group.

J Mac
Reply to  LdB
June 18, 2019 9:29 am

That is very good news!

Patrick MJD
June 17, 2019 9:12 pm

With Karoly and Cox on the panel Q&A lost any credibility they had left.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 18, 2019 4:24 am

they dont have ANY cred left from some time ago.
woman at shops today was all over how we need to cut the global pop to a billion heard on qna as well i gather
never occurs to her thats her and her kids grandkids they mean…

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  ozspeaksup
June 18, 2019 8:15 pm

It also never occurs to them that society and technology regress back in time to when the population of the Earth had 1 billion people.

A reduced population can not maintain a fixed state of infrastructure of technology. Things run down with use, but the maintenance remains the same.

For exactly the same reason as a town that goes bust (Detroit for example), the infrastructure and general condition of that society regresses as well. It can’t be otherwise.

So reducing the world population back to 1 billion, means that the feudal system will start up again, and wars with cannons and horses will make a come back. Unless one nation decides to NOT regress, in which they then become the dominant military power of the world (feudal system again but with bigger guns).

Pat Cusack
June 17, 2019 11:19 pm

Malcolm Roberts (retired engineer, managed a coal mine) has just been re-elected as a Senator for Queensland (2 pm Tuesday, 18 June) in Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party.

Let the fun begin.

Clarky of Oz
June 17, 2019 11:30 pm

My humble opinion only.

Our Pauline causes a lot of noise but the tag “influential” is problematic. A quirk of our upper house electoral system gives her and others an undue amount of clout.

I am reminded of the saying “With friends like this, who needs enemies?”

June 18, 2019 12:45 am

“Her climate views are advised by prominent Aussie climate skeptic Malcolm Roberts”, a coal miner.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
June 18, 2019 1:56 am

How about Tim Flannery, degree level English Lit. holder?

Reply to  Loydo
June 18, 2019 4:29 am

yeah right…and?
the ones earning their crust from self interested occupations like climate related anything on the public/private purse are ok? are they NOT also biased the other way?
but their bias is the “right” sort???

Reply to  Loydo
June 18, 2019 2:16 pm

Malcolm Roberts has magnitudes more understanding of science and engineering that you will EVER have, Loy-doh !

June 18, 2019 4:28 am

This should be interesting.

June 18, 2019 2:07 pm

Malcolm Roberts has won a seat in the Senate.

Welcome back, Malcolm, stick it to them. !!!

June 19, 2019 1:55 am

Racism and climate change denial often go hand in hand. Why is that? Could both be an indicator of intrinsic selfishness?

Bob Close
June 19, 2019 6:24 am

Malcolm Roberts is needed to help educate the public and the current Government about the very weak and uncertain scientific evidence that supports the current unrealistic CAGW paradigm backed by the IPCC, CSIRO and our BOM. His excellent 2016 expose of CSIRO’s crass acceptance of the IPCC’s overtly political analysis, selected data and crude GCM’s that rely on exaggerated CO2 atmospheric warming greatly enhanced by water vapour, should be followed up by further questions. Secondly, he should demand a proper independent evaluation of the BOM’s recent machinations of the historical temperature record using their dodgy homogenised ACORN datasets that have resulted in major changes to established local climate trends over the last 100 years and degradation of previous peak values. We now cannot trust the BOM’s climate record because all these changes have effectively cooled the past to show the desired long term warming trend, even though these trends are not overtly dangerous, they are telling us they are!
Once the public can be assured by the Government that modern climate change is not necessarily threatening, then all this climate hysteria, Paris Accords and related low carbon futures can fade away and we can rationally upgrade clean fossil fuels again to support our ailing power generation, reduce costs for the public and heavy industry thus enhancing job creation and wealth generation. Go Malcolm!

Joe Campbell
June 19, 2019 6:49 am

Jeez, Simon. That one needs to be item one in the “Spurious Correlations” department (…

June 21, 2019 6:54 pm

Proff. Karolly was one of the three Climate Commissioners appointed
by PM Julie Gillarcd, from pressure by the Greens who were in a sort of
agreement with her to enable her minority government to survive One other
was Prof. Tim Flannery, a expert in the tree kangeroo of PNG.

Can’t recall the third member.


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights