[Peetwo]

Nuclear Energy v Aviation Down Unda: 'Is the air and laws of physics different down here??'  

I note that in the hallowed halls of our Parliament the rational, commonsense arguments for Australia adopting nuclear energy are slowly but surely gaining momentum...    

From BJ 2 days ago:

Nuclear Energy

 

Mr JOYCE (New England) (18:49): It's great to get this opportunity to take you for a little wander around the world, which I want to do right here. I want to take you for a wander around the nuclear world and enlighten people about how Australia is now an outlier—a ridiculous outlier.

Let's start with who uses nuclear power in North America. Remember, North America has Death Valley; it's got hot areas; it's got sunny areas; it's got windy areas; it's got everything—every asset that they attribute to Australia. Well, Canada uses nuclear power. In fact, even Ontario's power is about half the price of the power that we have. The United States has nuclear power. And Mexico has nuclear power. So we have a clean sweep in America—not in Central America but in America.

You might say, 'Well, that's unusual, or not unique,' so let's go for a wander around Europe. Who uses nuclear power? Spain uses it; France uses it; Belgium does. These are the people that actually have nuclear reactors. The ones with nuclear reactors that produce electricity from them are Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus, Finland and Sweden. And then you might say, 'Oh, hang on—you've left Germany out.' No; they use nuclear power from France. What France is doing at the moment is: their power is around about our price, and people think, 'What's the trick there?' Well, they are making a bucketload of money out of the Germans, because the Germans are using the French nuclear power, and so they're absolutely creaming it in France. And the Germans are trying to refurbish their coal-fired power plants.

But then you might think, 'Maybe it's just a European thing or an American thing.' So this is the one that's interesting. Oh, by the way, going back to Europe: the other countries that are developing it are Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Italy. They're actually in the process of developing it. So you've almost got a clean sweep through Europe. You've almost got clean sweep through North America. And you've virtually got a clean sweep through Europe. There are only a couple of countries that do not use nuclear power. Ireland is one, and possibly Portugal, but they could be using it from Spain. There's Denmark, but maybe they actually pick it up from France as well; they could be picking it up from the Netherlands; and then, when Poland gets going, they could be picking it up from Poland.

Let's go to Africa. Now, I think that we've probably got some advantages over Africa.

An honourable member: They can't afford it.

 Mr JOYCE: Oh, no; you're dead right! This is the myth: 'You can't afford it, it's so expensive.' Well, there are a few countries that apparently believe they can afford it! South Africa already has it, and these are the countries that are now developing it: Senegal, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Zambia. So I hope the penny is just starting to drop, somewhere, that the world has changed! The world is moving on, and it's leaving us behind with Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola and a couple of other countries that are just like us—Angola is just like us; it's not looking at it either. Oh, and Somalia—we've got a friend in Somalia; they're not looking at it. So this is ludicrous.

Let's go to the Middle East. The countries there that use it are Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.
Of course Russia uses it. We don't even need to say Russia.

But these are the countries that are now developing it: Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and of course the United Arab Emirates. Oh, by the way, the United Arab Emirates have got four plants. It took them eight years to get the first one up and running. It was operational, producing electrons for the grid, within eight years.

What's so frustrating about this is that there's a lot of Australian expertise that actually assists in this. From helping them to draw up the legislation to world's best gold-standard practice, Australians are actually in that process—technicians. The one place these Australians can't work is here, because we don't actually have it! But maybe it's just in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and North America.

So let's go to South-East Asia. China, of course, in the next 15 years, will be in the process of developing 150 new nuclear reactors. I'll repeat that: in the next 15 years they're looking to go into the production and the planning of another 150 new nuclear reactors. And they're using it as a mechanism, with Russia, to leverage their influence in other countries, where they're saying, 'We'll provide you with the technology to do this.' This is why a lot of those countries in Africa are on board. If we want to have a moral movement of effect in the world, wouldn't we be saying, 'Use our technology,' so that we could put our fingerprints on this?

Let's go through South-East Asia. Japan uses it; South Korea uses it; China uses it; India uses it—in fact, they're expanding it. In fact, South Korea and Japan are at the forefront of the technology of developing nuclear reactors that they sell to other countries. But then let's go to the people who are developing it: Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. They're all in the process of development; they're way ahead of us.

There are two countries—away from Angola and Somalia—known in the world that have gone nowhere near this: New Zealand and Australia. We are out there. We are really out there. Even Greta Thunberg supports nuclear energy. It is this ridiculous position that we have got ourselves into, in this country, where we are sort of Luddites. We are sitting back decades—we are literally sitting back in the last century—in our view of this technology. And the world has moved on.

There's a really simple thing about most of these nuclear reactors. Enrichment for plutonium for atomic weapons—which is very dangerous—is 98 per cent. With these nuclear reactors, we're talking about nothing—most of it is not beyond five per cent. It's a completely different technology that so many people are just unaware of. The people who are most unaware of it—who are the most, basically, nuclear-power illiterate—are us. We have a nuclear reactor bang smack in the middle of Sydney, and incredibly smart people, but as to the production of nuclear power, we're the ones that are illiterate. The reports we rely on to underwrite our ignorance are Australian reports, but Australia doesn't produce nuclear energy. We should be using the Finnish reports, or the French reports, or the Canadian reports, or the American reports, or the Chinese reports, or the Russian reports, or the Estonian reports, or the Spanish reports, or the Brazilian reports, or the Argentinian reports, or the Mexican reports—reports from all these other parts of the world.

Our role—we're seeing it right now. Right now, or in a few hours, they're going to start—or they've already started voting in America, actually. They started in New Hampshire—

An honourable member interjecting— 

 Mr JOYCE: All six of them. But what we've got to understand is that Australia has one role. To be quite frank, the rise of totalitarianism in comparison to democracy is vastly more evident and vastly more powerful than it was before the Second World War. There is absolutely no doubt about it. If you look at the totalitarian countries, like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea—who are sending their troops over to Ukraine now, so this is real—they're vastly more powerful than the comparative power of the fascists before the start of the Second World War. What does that mean for us? It means don't panic, but become as powerful as possible, as quickly as possible. Every section of what you do must be at the top. You must be at the top in education. You must be at the top in agriculture. You must be at the top in manufacturing. You must be at the top in nuclear technology and power. You must be at the top. This is one of the areas where we've just got to accept the reality of where the world is, and get on board.

I'll give you another little epiphany. Sweden has 14 offshore swindle factories—windfarms, or whatever you want to call them. Anyway, they're closing 13 of them down. They're out of it. It's not working for them. They've got massive environmental concerns about them. They've got massive strategic concerns about them, especially with submariners and strategic issues as to how sonar works and the problems that has caused. I don't want our nation to be up to our throat in an obsolete technology, so that reality can just come and belt us on the head and say, 'Why on earth did you do that?' The answer was right before you. It was right in front of you, but your own a wilful ignorance took your nation to a weaker spot.

 
This is solid GOLD! - 

Courtesy Nuclear for Australia, via YouTube:

Hearing gets HEATED: Nuclear Expert Adi Paterson challenges Dan Repacholi

PATERSON, Dr Adrian (Adi), Founder and Principal, Siyeva Consulting

CHAIR: I have some questions now. My questions are around timeframe. The 2035 to 2037 period that the
coalition has put together seems to be, from our previous hearings, very unrealistic. If the coalition were to win
the next federal election, it would spend the next 2½ years—essentially the whole term—on community
consultation and site studies for its nuclear program. Do you think this is a reasonable first step?

Dr Paterson: We have an excellent regulator in the form of ARPANSA. You would have to increase the
number of people at ARPANZA. It's a world-class regulator. It's way better than the NRC, and I have the highest
regard for them. ASNO is a world-class regulator for security. You could beef up that regulatory structure in six
months.

CHAIR: That regulatory structure is very different, though, from the current one that we have—

Dr Paterson: It's exactly the same. It is absolutely no different. It's exactly the same. It is a furphy to say that
the regulator, ARPANSA, could not do that job. They are globally respected.

CHAIR: I didn't say they couldn't do the job, Dr Paterson; I did not say that at all.

Dr Paterson: What did you say? You asked me a question.

CHAIR: What I did say was that they're two very different things, having a small—

Dr Paterson: No, they're not. They are both nuclear reactors.

CHAIR: Yes. They're very different sizes, though, aren't they?

Dr Paterson: But size—

CHAIR: There are also state regulations that we've got to go through.

Mr TED O'BRIEN: Chair, can we hear his response? You're interrupting. He's trying to give his response.

Dr Paterson: With the greatest respect, Chair, there is no difference between the size. The risk is not related
to size. The risk is related to security safeguards and safety. The safety of modern generation III+ nuclear plants is
absolutely assured. They have been licensed around the world. If credit is given through the international
licencing agencies for the licensing that has already happened to the plants that are being built, does Australia
need to do it again? Is there something about the Southern Hemisphere that we don't know? When we took the
licensing of aircraft and we generalised it to single licenced aircraft internationally, it reduced the cost of air
travel. It was done much more rapidly. Our travel today is based on mutual recognition between respected
regulators in free countries that are democratic. We are not free in respect to nuclear, so, with the greatest respect
to your view that this will take a long time, if we recognise others who have done this work to the gold standard
that has been established all around the world, we wouldn't have to do the reregulation in order to persuade
ourselves that the laws of physics are different in Australia; they're identical.

CHAIR: Going with that, let's say it's 2028, and a site has been selected. How long would it take for the
studies, the preparation, the planning and the documents to pass through the planning process, including
objections, to run to international tender for construction, to sign the contract and to arrange finance, to start
mobilisation on site and to complete all civil works required for construction and then to build the actual reactor
and then to commission the reactor? How long do you think that would take?

Dr Paterson: It would take about three years longer than it took for the OPAL reactor.

CHAIR: And how long was the OPAL reactor?

Dr Paterson: That was eight years.

CHAIR: So you're saying it will take 11 years to do.

Dr Paterson: Yes, which is about as fast as the current process, if it were properly regulated and ecologically
controlled, for a row of wind turbines. But the problem with the wind turbines is that they're only available two
days a week. The problem with solar panels is they are only available one day a week. What are you going to do
about the problem of 100 per cent electricity for Aussies all the time at a reasonable cost? It cannot be done. I've
told you about Riddell's work. We know from the published engineering literature. My sense of urgency is that
whatever people say about renewables is true—they can do certain things. But they cannot provide, under the
AEMO plan, reliable electricity to Australians. We have a plan that will fail. If we allow our engineers to work on
a proper plan when the bans have been lifted—who would do a career in nuclear in Australia at the moment? It's
banned.

CHAIR: If we go to Czechia, for instance, it's taken 16 years from tender to commercial operation for their
plant to be done there, and they've been in the nuclear industry for 66 years. That's 16 years for a group that has
been involved in it for a long time. Let's go to a new one where they didn't have nuclear to start with, which is the
UAE. They had 15 years, and they got theirs through in that time. How would Australia get one through in that
period of time considering we don't have the workforce, considering we don't have all of the experience that
Czechia had, for instance, and considering we also have health and safety measures for our workforce that the
UAE currently don't have in and around what happens to their workforce. How could we get it done in that
timeframe?

Dr Paterson: I'll start with the UAE.

CHAIR: Could we be quick on this please because we've only got two minutes left

Mr TED O'BRIEN: The question went for about that long. I think we should give him enough time to answer
the question comprehensively.

Dr Paterson: They are very good questions, and I really appreciate the chance to answer them. In the case of
the UAE, they started from a zero base. They had no nuclear capacity in the country, and they needed to build up
their workforce, and the workforce had to do the job effectively. They went from not having a regulator and not
having any infrastructure, and they set themselves what they called the gold standard—they would meet all the
international requirements fully and do it in a period of time. If you take the set-up that we wouldn't have to do,
which is establish regulators and do all of that sort of stuff which they still had to do and pass all those laws, and
then if you take the period that it actually took from first concrete to first electrons, depending on if you use the
US system or the UK system, that was either 12 years or eight years. From a standing start, they built Korean
APR-14,000 plants with the workforce they sourced internationally, including a whole bunch of Aussies. They
put them together and turned them into a machine to make nuclear reactors, and they did it in that period of time.
We need about the same set of skills and the same number of people just to build the grid that we have to build.
The question is: how long will it take us to build the grid? If we take the people who would be employed to build
the grid and give them really interesting jobs—building nuclear power plants where you don't have to go out and
run up and down a new grid, where you can be close to the grid, you can get skills that you can take to the second
plant and the third plant, and you have an integrated plan with everybody working together—that would be an
absolute wonderful thing to do.

Czechia is really interesting. They still make cars. They understand the value of energy density; they're a small
country which is highly technical. Why did it take them so long? They've got an incredible population density.
Their challenge is finding a place where you can put up a plant where you cannot bump into a whole lot of
people. The remarkable thing about Czechia was that it took them a bit longer to get the social licence on the
ground, but, because they have all of the technical capabilities in their economy, they didn't have to bring
anybody in to do it.

Remember that the timescales you're talking about are two battery life cycles. Batteries last 9.8 years. You
have to replace them every 10 years; I'm a battery expert. So every battery we build in this country, which is
apparently cheap and is going to save our lives, is going to be replaced every 10 years. What does that do to our
workforce? What does that do to our economics? If we don't go for the best energy with the lowest carbon and
with the highest reliability in the world and if we maintain the bans, I'd say simply to you: lift the bans, create an
enabling environment, let the market do its work and create the labour force that will benefit from working at the
cutting edge of the next generation of technology for hundreds of millions of people around the world who need
Australia to be the place that takes our nuclear energy into their developing nation.

CHAIR: I just need a yes or no answer to this question, please: are you saying that we could build seven
nuclear power plants within 11 years in this country?

Dr Paterson: If you and I sat in a room and planned it, we could do it.

CHAIR: Thank you for your time today. If you have been asked to provide any additional information,
including questions on notice, please forward it to the secretariat by Monday 25 November. Please note that the
responses to questions on notice will be published on the website as submissions to the inquiry. If any of the
committee members have extra questions they would like to ask, please forward them to the secretariat. You will
be sent a copy of the transcript of your evidence to assist you with answering questions taken on notice today, and
you will have an opportunity to request corrections to the transcript. Thank you.

Hmmm...why does this quote ring so many bells??

"...The safety of modern generation III+ nuclear plants is absolutely assured. They have been licensed around the world. If credit is given through the international licencing agencies for the licensing that has already happened to the plants that are being built, does Australia need to do it again? Is there something about the Southern Hemisphere that we don't know? When we took the licensing of aircraft and we generalised it to single licenced aircraft internationally, it reduced the cost of air travel. It was done much more rapidly. Our travel today is based on mutual recognition between respected regulators in free countries that are democratic. We are not free in respect to nuclear, so, with the greatest respect to your view that this will take a long time, if we recognise others who have done this work to the gold standard that has been established all around the world, we wouldn't have to do the reregulation in order to persuade ourselves that the laws of physics are different in Australia; they're identical..." 

However for mine the best example of a well researched, learned understanding of the truths, science and costs of nuclear energy generation vs the renewables fantasy, coupled with a negation of the politics of nuclear energy, then IMO you can't go past the consummate Senator David Fawcett...  

Former Experimental Test Pilot Explains CSIRO Modelling On Cost Of Nuclear

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad the minister made that last comment, because as somebody with a background in science and a qualification in science, and as a former experimental test pilot in the military—in fact, having commanded Australia's flight test centre and worked in a systems engineering environment where we were very much based on facts, data and engineering, but with a good dose of modelling in there as well—I'm actually very familiar with the sort of approach that the CSIRO has taken. As the minister indicated, we do have things like Senate estimates, and I did take the opportunity to go to Senate estimates to speak to the CSIRO about the GenCost report. It may come as a surprise to the minister that, when I asked the head of the CSIRO to speak about the GenCost report, having made it clear to the committee that I intended to appear at those estimates hearings to ask about the GenCost report—therefore, the expectation is that the agencies that are being quizzed will bring the appropriate officials in order to be able to answer detailed questions at estimates—I was told that the appropriate officials were not there, and the only responses that I got to some reasonably detailed questions were very generic. So, contrary to what the minister has indicated, estimates actually proved completely useless in terms of interrogating the CSIRO over the GenCost report. I can't speak to the motivation of CSIRO in not bringing those officials, but what it meant was that members of the Senate, on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, were not able to scrutinise them in any detail.

If we took the minister's contention that he just outlined then and applied it more broadly, there would be no point in having committees of the parliament at all. In matters to do with health, for example, we might ask the AMA to draft our policy and scrutinise it. In matters to do with defence, we would rely on the defence department and perhaps defence industry, and there would be no point in having any scrutiny on behalf of the Australian taxpayer. Yet the minister knows full well, because he has been a member of committees in this place, that the whole function of committees and the Senate committee process—getting a range of witnesses who are stakeholders affected by policy or who are subject matter experts who understand the technical details, whether in health, in economics or in defence; you name it—is so that we can unpack and understand what is behind a policy or a piece of evidence. - P2: Plus indeed the aviation industry..

The last point I'll make on this, since the minister has so kindly given me this introductory runway to approach this issue, relates to the 2019 House of Representatives inquiry into the possibility of a nuclear power industry. This is going back to the 2018 GenCost report. I will look at the Hansard records from that, from Wednesday 16 October 2019. I respect the CSIRO, as somebody who has a science degree; I respect the whole discipline of science, which is observation, measurement and proof. But when the CSIRO were quizzed in this parliamentary inquiry about the GenCost report—and I'll paraphrase here, but those of you who would like to read it can pull up the Hansard from Wednesday 16 October 2019 for the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy—essentially the narrative went like this: CSIRO said, 'We don't have any expertise in electricity generation by nuclear energy,' so the committee asked, 'Well, where did you get the figures that you used in your report, then?' They said, 'Well, we contracted an external consultant to provide those figures for us.' If you look through the Hansard you'll see the committee met on a sequence of days. Why did they do that? Because, as each piece of evidence unfolded, they dug a bit deeper.

They had that consultant come in and they said, 'Describe for us where you got the information from.' What the consultant said was, 'Well, we don't have any expertise in nuclear power generation, so we went to the website of the World Nuclear Association to find information.' The following day there was another hearing, this time with a representative from the World Nuclear Association, and the committee asked them, 'Did you have this figure on your website?' They said, 'No, we didn't have it on our website, and, more to the point, we think it is grossly inflated and unrepresentative of what the true costs would be.' To the CSIRO's great credit, they took all that on board, and I think they have been far more robust in how they've approached it since. But, to directly address the minister's point, the benefit of a committee process with a range of witnesses that were able to challenge the assumptions that have been made was that it highlighted that the 2018 GenCost report was not based on any robust analysis of the facts of the cost of electricity generation, let alone any analysis of the likely price to the consumer.

I will leave that there, but I'm hoping that that completely debunks the minister's assertion that there is no value in a parliamentary inquiry. Estimates has not worked—and he proposed it would—and a parliamentary committee did highlight that, in this particular domain, the CSIRO did not have expertise in the paths they went down and that they delivered figures that were proved, on the public record, to not be robust. Why do I support this? Partly it's because I believe in that committee process, but it's also partly that, as someone who has worked in an engineering environment using modelling and as someone who has a qualification in science, I recognise that the GenCost report is largely a modelling activity, as opposed to science. If you search the PDF of the latest GenCost report, the word 'assumption' appears some 54 times, and, like in most modelling, they've had to make assumptions. There are a range of assumptions in GenCost that the CSIRO themselves identify as not necessarily representative of the complete suite of factors to be considered.

I have some empathy for them; it's a complex problem, but there are a few things that the Australian public need to be aware of. When Mr Bowen and others cite this as the be-all and end-all—the gospel according to the CSIRO that shall not be challenged—it needs to be said that it is a modelling exercise with assumptions based on an incomplete set of data. There are other expert bodies in Australia and around the world who have also done modelling and come up with quite different answers to the same questions. That's why we should give the Australian people the opportunity to have different experts in the field address their modelling, their assumptions and, more importantly, their lived experience so that the Australian people can decide whether this is something that we should be moving towards.

The first point is that this modelling is not designed to understand the most effective way to get cheap and reliable electricity to the Australian consumer, whether that be mum and dad at home, a small business or an industrial sector that will probably go offshore if the power prices continue to increase. In paragraph 1.1.1 of the latest GenCost report, which describes the roles the CSIRO and AEMO had in the report, it says 'to provide an update of current electricity generation and storage cost'. It's not about highlighting the cheapest way to get electricity. That paragraph also talks about the levelised cost of electricity, which is all about the factors affecting the cost to generation, as opposed to the full system's costs.

The third point I would make is that they highlight, in paragraph 1.2 on page 16 of the GenCost report:

As discussed in Graham (2018) it is not possible to undertake spreadsheet type modelling to create a transparent but accurate estimate of the cost of integrating renewables.

This is one of the significant factors that affect the analysis of whether a renewables based approach can be comparable in terms of delivering reliability and low cost to the consumer versus baseload type approaches, whether that be high-flow rivers providing hydro or things like nuclear power. So they're saying here that they can't provide a transparent and accurate estimate costs of integrating renewables. The report states:

If it were, this would have been the preferred method of implementation in GenCost.

Again, they quote Graham:

Graham (2018) concluded an electricity system modelling approach must be applied, where the details of the calculations are written in code that call on proprietary optimisation algorithms which unfortunately results in a loss of transparency.

I'm not saying that the CSIRO is in any way being malign in how they're approaching this, but their chosen vendor, their chosen model, their chosen algorithms and their chosen assumptions are but one set that feeds into a model that gives an outcome of cost degeneration.

Other equally expert bodies—and I'm talking here about bodies like the International Energy Agency, the OECD, or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and their subsidiary, the NEA, the Nuclear Energy Agency—have worked together over a number of years to model not the cost to generate but the cost to the consumer. In terms of that simple measure, the levelised cost of electricity, which even GenCost recognises is not a suitable cost for this analysis and comparison, the OECD report that came out in April 2022 looks at a systems-wide approach and demonstrates very clearly that what they call 'long-run nuclear power', even on a levelised cost of electricity basis, is the cheapest form of electricity. If you run a plant for a long time, it becomes, over the life of that asset, the cheapest way to generate power. They also highlight in that analysis that even new-build nuclear is on a par with grid-scale renewables but is cheaper than others. For example, it's actually cheaper than rooftop or offshore wind et cetera.

If people who are interested look at pages 35 to 37 of that OECD report, they then break down the elements into the generating costs, the systems costs and the broader environmental costs. They highlight that, as we seek to move to curb emissions, we will probably get to 2030 with rising, but not unaffordable, power prices. But, if we seek to get to net zero by 2050 just using variable renewables with firming by things like batteries, as more coal and gas comes out of the system in order to achieve net zero, prices will go up exponentially, and their conclusion is that it is unaffordable. This is not the coalition saying that. This is the OECD and the International Energy Agency. That is why people like the IPCC are saying we need to have nuclear power as part of the mix, and that's why so many nations around the world are looking to double or triple the amount of nuclear power generation they have.

So another point I'd make is that, despite the government's claim that nuclear is the most expensive form of energy, the lived experience of people in countries like Canada says otherwise. If you look at some of the information coming out of Canada, you can see that nuclear is even cheaper than hydro and is certainly cheaper than gas, wind, solar and bioenergy, in terms of how the Energy Board in Ontario manages things. That's partly because of the broader costs that variable renewables have in terms of the additional infrastructure.

My last point will be around the Net Zero Australia project done by three universities and a consultancy, which highlighted that the cost of all the additional transmission and firming as well as new generation is going to cost us in the order of $1.2 to $1.5 trillion by 2030, and $7 to $9 trillion by 2060. The nuclear option is actually far cheaper than the variable path the Albanese government has us on.

For the sake of the GA industry, bring back Senator Fawcett...  

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Lefties Losing It | Pauline Hanson's Please Explain

And from JL..



Luv it! -

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Chris Uhlmann blows the lid off the Albo climate change scam?? - 

Finally on YouTube, well worth the time...

222,336 views  Nov 27, 2024

Sky News Australia reveals the true cost of the race to renewable energy in an exclusive investigation by political contributor Chris Uhlmann.

Plus, last week's 'Please Explain Part II':

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

A Few Good Women: Trump's new Pres Sec and Senator Price -

Trump's new Press Secretary is solid GOLD!!

Via YouTube:

Next from our own female political RockStar Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price...

Via the AP emails:

Dear P2,

It’s been a big week.

I’m thrilled to have been appointed as the Coalition’s new Shadow Minister for Government Efficiency.

Because seriously, the government waste in this country needs to stop.

The Albanese Labor Government is creating waste like it’s going out of fashion.

They’ve increased spending by $347 billion since they came to power.

If it’s not the $450 million they wasted on the Voice referendum or the $1 billion they paid a US company to build a quantum computer that Australia’s own Chief Scientist has said probably won’t deliver anything quicker than the private sector, it’s the 36,000 additional bureaucrats in Canberra that have cost us all a whopping $6 billion.

I want to promise you something.

If Peter Dutton and the Coalition win government, we’ll be re-aligning government spending with what matters and makes a difference for everyday Aussies.

And that’s on top of the work I’ll continue to do if we form government in my portfolio as Minister for Indigenous Australians.

I want every single dollar of the Aboriginal industry to be audited.

Because seriously, we’re not talking about millions of dollars being spent in this space.
We’re talking BILLIONS.

The Voice referendum showed us that Australians want to see their taxpayer dollars spent better.
On REAL solutions to everyday problems.

Not just comes to helping marginalised Indigenous communities, but right across the board.
The solution here is exceedingly simple.

Stop the waste.

And redirect funding back to places where we actually see REAL solutions.

We don’t need empty and expensive gestures if people can’t find a job to support their family.

The age of reckless waste is coming to an end.

We’re going to turn this ship around, we’re going to turn the waste tap off, and we’re going to return our focus back to those who need it most.

That’s my promise to you.

Yours for REAL solutions,



Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Senator for the Northern Territory
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians[/size]

Plus courtesy PM SkyNews, via YouTube: 

Finally this week from Johannes Leak...



MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price on Oz Story - 

Plus via the AP emails:

[font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]Dear P2,

This week the government released their annual update to Closing the Gap.

The “gap” is the differences in outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians across a range of economic, educational, and well-being measures.

Disappointingly, the government’s response did not include two crucial areas of reform recommended by the Productivity Commission in 2024.

This is nothing new.

And I’ve been consistent and forthright in my criticisms of how the Albanese Labor Government has handled addressing Indigenous disadvantage.

But I’ve got more big-picture concerns about the Closing the Gap report and overall process.

Because I don’t believe we can really trust the data.

That’s not to say there isn’t a “gap” that needs closing, of course there is.

But the fact is not all Indigenous Australians are marginalised or struggling; but by treating the whole Indigenous population as a monolithic group, the Closing the Gap process simply repeats the same mistakes we’ve seen over and over again.

It is, once again, trying to help people based on race and not on need.

So of course we’re not meeting the targets.

In my view, we’ve also seen self-identication of Indigeneity grow in an unnatural way, skewing the baseline for the data and so we’re not getting a true indication of how Closing the Gap is or isn’t working.

Governments continue to throw money at the same problems and are not getting anywhere.

That’s why we need a full and frank audit into spending in Indigenous affairs so we can get to the bottom of what works and what doesn’t.

And then we must focus on economic empowerment and directing assistance to people based on need not race.

Until we do that, the gap will remain stubbornly wide and it’s our most marginalised who pay the price.

Yours for REAL solutions,


Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Senator for the Northern Territory
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians[/font]

Senator BMack dukes it out with 'Lighter Shade of Green' Zali Steggall?? 

Plus JL's cartoon in the Oz today...



MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Erin with 'Bat Beep Crazy' - Episode 6

Via YouTube:

Watch or FFWD to the end from about 19:36, very funny...

Next from JL this week..



MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Election 2025: Is Albo to be a 1 term PM??

Couple of social media pics heavily doing the rounds...



&..



Hmm...I personally can't argue with any of that...  

Next, on the failed experimental, toxic, WOFTAM Teals...  


 
Ahh...my heart bleeds - 

Finally from JL this week...



 MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Election 2025 - Week One?? 

From Senator JNP, via AP emails:

[font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]Dear P2,

The election is on! We’re off and racing.

But where’s Albo?

I’ve been on the ground this week, speaking to people, hearing their stories – and let me tell you, people are struggling out there.

You already know this, you see it too.

And yet when I speak to these hardworking Australians whose power bills have gone up, or who might be facing homelessness if they get another rent-rise, one word keeps coming up.

“Abandoned.”

Australians have been abandoned by the Labor government.

And you would think that, come election time, Labor would at least make an appearance.

But the truth is, when it comes to real practical solutions that improve people's lives and living standards, Labor has gone missing in action.

If they won’t step up, then the Coalition will.

We’ve announced a number of measures that will ease this cost-of-living crisis and get Australia back on track.

Our plan to cut fuel tax means your fuel will be 25c cheaper per litre with every refill. That's an average of $14 saved per tank! It will provide much needed relief not just a for individuals but for businesses and the broader economy.

This is what we mean when we say we want to get Australia back on track.

While we’re committing to managing the economy in a way that lets Aussies get ahead, Labor and Anthony Albanese are committing to sugar hits that won’t help our economy or get us back on track where it matters.

Because while they’re talking to journalists or to themselves, we’re talking to people.

While they’re out to lunch, we’re out in the communities.

Why?

Because it’s time to get Australia back on track.

Yours for REAL solutions,

[/font]

Next courtesy of PHON, via AP emails:

[font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]
[/font]



Dear P2,

This morning, live on Sunrise, we made the biggest announcement of our campaign so far — and it’s a game changer.

[font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]VOLUNTEER[/font]

[font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]Lee Hanson—proud Tasmanian, mother, problem-solver, and daughter of Pauline Hanson – is officially One Nation’s lead Senate candidate for Tassie in the 2025 federal election.

This will turn the Senate race in Tasmania on its head and change things significantly. The announcement is off the back of a week when One Nation surged, pushing at least 9% across 3 major polls. 

Lee’s announcement is more than just another candidate launch. It’s the beginning of a bold new chapter for One Nation in Tasmania and Australia-wide. She’s lived in Tassie for over a decade, raised her family here, and knows firsthand what everyday Tasmanians are going through.

[/font]

[font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]WATCH NOW[/font]

[font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]She’s not a political insider. She’s one of us – and she’s stepping up to fight for a better future for our state.

Lee brings serious leadership experience, the determination to fix what’s broken, and the courage to say what others won’t:[/font]

• [font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]Tasmania’s healthcare system is failing—we need real reform, not bandaid promises.[/font]
  
• [font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]Our schools are pushing ideology over education—and it’s time to fix that.[/font]
  
• [font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]Housing, inflation, and cost-of-living pressures are spiraling—and immigration must be brought under control.[/font]
  

[font='Segoe UI', 'Segoe UI Web (West European)', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif]Lee Hanson is fresh blood with deep conviction—and she’s ready to take this fight all the way to Canberra.

But to win, we need YOU.

We're calling on all supporters across Tasmania and Australia: if you’ve ever thought about stepping up – now is the time.

We’re building our volunteer team for street stalls, letterbox drops, signage, local events, and digital support. No matter your skillset or availability, there’s a role for you.

This is the moment. Help us send a real fighter to the Senate.Let’s show the major parties that Tasmania won’t be ignored. With Lee Hanson leading the charge, we’re in this to win.

Standing with you,
 
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation[/font]

Next from JL before the Election was called...



MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Just a whimsical journey.

Memory lane – Tracy revisited. Funny ain't it, the way your mind can set course all on its own. I had a pile of 'edged' tools in need of a tune up; automatic to hands, boring to the thinking crew, so off they wandered, scratching about in the rubble for a morsel to ponder.

The ramble began with the Hitch braggadocio in his weakly piffle, it was the 'quote' below which set me rambling.

“And I have already pledged myself to good aviatorship; I did that in 1988 when I passed my restricted PPL test.”  Hmmmm!  Well, best I let that rest lest I really get cranky.

“Who knows himself a braggart, let him fear this, for it will come to pass that every braggart shall be found an ass.”

It began with what was I doing in 1988, this led me back to the early 1970's. Which of course led me down memory lane to Darwin. I had been up there a while; operating under the IFR, 206, 207, 210, B55 and the dear old C402 (lovely old ship). However my idyll was interrupted by 'domestic tyranny' and a solemn promise to be home by Christmas; so I packed my gear and departed the fix (monstrously hung over) Dec 23 1974.

By Christmas lunch time, news of TC Tracy filtered through; mixed feelings then for me; glad I missed it, worried about 'the mates', concerned for RED – and the news was very scant; impossible to call. All history now of course; but, it made me a little proud to be an Australian. The nation's response was magnificent; the population rose to the occasion in gold medal form. Bravo one and all; well done. So nostalgia set in; I found the following offering from the ABC on 'you tube' and I wonder if the nation would/could respond in a similar fashion in this day and age. I hope we never have to find out; not again.

Just a whimsical ramble – enjoy the ABC report -

Toot – toot. 

[Peetwo]

Excerpts from the dirtiest, most dishonest and boring Election EVER!

Courtesy SkyNews Oz, via YouTube:

And for a dose of reality...

Courtesy NewsMax, via YouTube:

Visit NewsMax YouTube for more informative and less woke media commentary on the election: Newsmax Australia

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

FWIW  - Election (yawn -  ? ) Update

Courtesy SkyNews, via YouTube:

&..

Plus courtesy Aussie Fan:

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

A question and a twiddle - signifying absolutely nothing.

How do you get 14 neighbours and half a dozen tradies into a workshop?

Scene 1:: It is not as easy as you may think; with your indulgence, I shall explain.  There I was, in the workshop, oblivious to the 'child minding' scheduled for the day. I own a very (very) lovely very old 'Disston' 'rip saw' – carved Apple wood handle, full length and probably one of the finest hand tools ever made. Every once a while it needs to be sharpened and set; lots of teeth, each one requiring its own 'special' needs attended to; so concentration at maximum. To 'set' the teeth, each alternate 'tooth' must be persuaded to be 'set' in the opposite direction to the preceding one; so once again total focus. Finished off the last one and returned to  planet earth; nearly jumped out of my boots when a small voice said; “what are you doing?'.

Scene 2:: Stood at the end of the bench, was a small solemn face; the urge to curse, very loudly and profanely dissipated rapidly; I took a deep breath and said quietly “well' I'm sharpening a saw”. “Can I see it?” - “please”. So, I took the saw out of the 'vice' and as I did, it made the usual mystic, fascinating noise it did when 'bent' and some friction is applied. “Oh! - make it sing again” said the small voice. Well, for two decades now there has been a violin and bow in case stored in the 'odd bins' rack (no idea so don't ask). If you 'bend the fine spring steel of a saw and scrape a fiddle bow over it, the saw can be persuaded to make a 'musical' sound (sort of). The small face was delighted.

Scene 3:: I put the kettle on; dreading the inevitable; Alas. The plea for 'more' so  much like Oliver Twist's plaintive plea; it would be and outrage to deny it. Having absolutely no musical abilities whatsoever, I turned to 'the net'; found a favourite aria and put it up on the 'big screen'. Small face and I settled on stools to watch. The second time we played it at max volume – the third time was at the request of my 'visitors', mentioned in Scene 1. There is no coffee left in the pot; no biscuits left in the jar: but there were at least 20 people who forgot about the bloody election for an hour. All down to my old, treasured saw. Take a moment to listen; it is worth it.

Toot – toot. Bravo indeed.

[Peetwo]

The Great Energy Deception: The True Cost Of Renewables | Chris Uhlmann

Well worth the time to watch -

Via YouTube:

73,606 views Jun 6, 2025

John Anderson and journalist Chris Uhlmann confront Australia’s energy crisis, revealing the stark costs of renewable energy. Despite claims of affordability, electricity prices have soared 70% in a decade, tied to a rise in renewables. South Australia’s costly grid and Spain’s blackout expose renewables’ instability, a risk worsened by Australia’s isolation. The discussion questions why leaders dodge honest talks on costs, leaving citizens vulnerable to an unreliable energy future.

Nuclear energy emerges as a stable, zero-emission solution, yet Australia resists while others embrace it. Pursuing net-zero on just 1% of global emissions threatens industries like agriculture and manufacturing, with subsidies masking costs that hit the poor hardest. As trust in leadership erodes, John and Chris call for a hopeful, rational approach—urging young Australians to question narratives, embrace nuclear, and preserve the nation’s energy superpower status to secure a prosperous, stable future.

Chris Uhlmann is a Walkley Award winning Australian journalist and news commentator. His career in the media spans over 35 years in radio, print and television. His latest documentary is The Real Cost of Net Zero: The shocking truth of the renewable energy push, available to watch here: • The Real Cost of Net Zero: The shocking tr...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Addendum to last..

Courtesy Senator JNP, via the AP emails:

P2,

You read that correctly.

This week, I, along with the Country Liberal Party Central Council, have taken a tough stance.

Together, we passed a motion in support of abandoning Australia’s net zero emissions targets and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.

Now, don’t get me wrong.

I’m the first person to say how important it is that we steward our country and protect our environment.

But pursuing these abstract targets and signing up to these international agreements should not come at the expense of our OWN economy and way of life.

Let me put it even more bluntly.

We need to put Australians first again.

For too long, our weak political leaders have lived in a bubble – a bubble where each person tries to out-woke each other.

The result?

A net zero agreement here.

An international conference there.

It may sound harmless, but it’s not.

The truth is, bit by bit, this game of woke one-up-manship in the Canberra bubble has led us to where we are today.

It’s eroding our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life.

Remember: These people have put the interest of international organisations BEFORE those of Australians for far too long.

And where did it get us?

Excruciatingly high power bills for families and businesses.

Unstable and insecure baseload power, with the threat of blackouts in the future.

And a reliance on foreign countries to manufacture our solar panels, wind turbines and keep the lights on.

This isn’t sustainable… it’s dangerous, and it’s worsening Australia’s way of life.

Canberra’s ideological commitment to achieving net zero emissions is fanciful, destructive and just not worth the downsides.

Like I said this week, “the current impact of these policies does not justify their burden on everyday Aussies, and it’s high time we did something about it!”

This is a tough stance, because this is the time to get tough.

No more Canberra-bubble politics.

No more taking the lead from foreign organisations.

It’s time to put Australians first again.

Yours for REAL solutions,



Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Senator for the Northern Territory
Shadow Minister for Defence Industry
Shadow Minister for Defence Personnel

[Kharon]

A mystery solved.

Countless hours of careful, painstaking research, much like archaeologists piecing together the origins of why and how rulers of an ancient culture developed 'their' system of governance, population control and retained their power of life or death over the hoi-polloi. Careful reconstruction of the system and research has linked this ancient system to the core tenets of the CASA operating system. The video presentation below has been provided by a reputable research company, carefully edited to protect the innocent and avoid legal onslaught. The listener may have to read between the lines; the message is, however, crystal clear. Enjoy..

Thanks to the Skipper for the revelations...

Toot – toot.  

[Kharon]

Mini Rant.

Fair dinkum; what the Hell has happened to this nation. In the bush (that's outside of the cities) there has always been a tradition of helping each other. It is often a tough, isolated life out there and many great true tales support the notion  of 'help thy neighbor'; even if you don't like the bugger. It is a system which has worked for decades; particularly in times of flood, famine or fire; when it matters, for real.

Ask any pilot who has worked in the GAFA – how many times has a delivery or a lift in times of trouble been done in the same spirit? There is a mountain of tales which may be repeated in the Pub, for years. City bred folk will never understand 'the unwritten' law of the land. But it exists; oft unspoken, always downplayed; BUT  it is real and it matters.

Read this article from Sky News :- HERE - . Hard to believe ain't it. The fabric of Australian life now under management by office Wally's and pedants. Disgraceful.

Flood bound – Kids need to get to school; seats available; happy to pay – NO say the pedants. Unbelievable in Australia; words fail about here. The 'NO' probably came for some Latte fussy, sexually uncertain pea brain in an air conditioned office, with full service toilets and stress relief if that toilet broke down; or even if the Loo paper was the wrong color. Rant over

“It's taxpayer funded and even if we were willing to pay, the plane is coming here – it's been paid for by everyone's taxes whether you're Indigenous or non-Indigenous, the kids are from the same town. “And by the way, we're in the middle of a flood crisis and we couldn't get in or out.

Toot – toot. (Sigh).............

[Peetwo]

SS.Ley and E-Karen at the Press Club?? - 

(80% PROB vomit bag will be required -  )

 

This is Rowan Dean's take on these speeches...  

 

Next, for a bit of light humour, JL is on fire this week...  







MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Senator Wong is just Wrong - Senator Cash Gold Star: 24/07/25

Via the APH today...

MTF? - MUCH...P2

[Peetwo]

Senator Wong is just Wrong - Senator Cash Gold Star: TAKE II -

Previous:

Via the APH today...

Hansard out:

Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (15:03): I seek leave to make a statement of no more than five minutes.

Leave granted.

Senator McCARTHY: I speak today as a Yanyuwa Garrwa woman. We are known as li-Anthawirriyarra, which means our spiritual origin comes from the sea country and we talk from the heart. I also speak today as a proud First Nations member of this parliament, on behalf of and alongside my colleagues Senator Jana Stewart; Senator Dorinda Cox; Special Envoy Marion Scrymgour; the member for Robertson, Dr Gordon Reid; and the member for Leichhardt, Matt Smith. I speak today as a visitor to Ngunnawal country, welcomed beautifully this week by Aunty Violet Sheridan. I speak to the Senate about respect.

This week, the first week of the 48th Parliament, we've seen deliberate acts of disrespect in the Senate from One Nation senators. We've seen those senators come into the chamber for the acknowledgement of country, a longstanding part of the Senate Order of Business, purely to pull an incredibly childish and very hurtful stunt of turning their backs on that proceeding. These senators aren't required to be in the Senate for the acknowledgement of country; in fact, they haven't attended in the past. But they do now. Whether it is for attention or for clickbait, whether it is to cause offence or to stoke division, these senators have made a deliberate decision to disrespect First Nations Australians.

You'd think they would have learnt lessons from the election. You'd think they would have heard the clear message from the Australian people in May. The politics of culture wars were rejected. The politics of disrespect and nastiness were rejected. The politics of punching down on First Nations people were rejected. We just had three years of people in this place trying to do the opposite of that—attacking welcomes to country, attacking acknowledgements of country, trash-talking First Nations communities and representatives and undermining efforts to show respect for First Nations Australians. The Australian people made their rejection of that division and cynicism very, very clear.

Our government is committed to a different way of operating. We listen to people and treat them with respect, even when we do not agree with them. We won't be swayed by the gales of divisive culture wars wherever it comes from. Our government knows that the key to our success regarding First Nations people, and on all issues, is an approach of respect, listening, and approaching with a mind open to the truths of the past. Our government doesn't attack First Nations Australians but recognises them. We see them. We hear them. Our government will continue to listen to the people, from Fitzroy to Fitzroy Crossing, who have been here for countless generations—the longest continuing culture on earth. Our government engages with First Nations peoples, seeks the benefit of their experiences to build on the success of this country as a whole. Our government acknowledges them and their dignity, and that's what an acknowledgement of country is about.

As the Prime Minister put it on Monday, it is a respectful way for us to begin our deliberations here in Canberra which, of course, means 'meeting place'. It is a reminder as well that, while we all belong here together, we are stronger together and we belong. What a welcome to country does is hold out, like a hand warmly and graciously extended, an opportunity for us to embrace and to show a profound love of home and country.

I urge those senators, in particular the new senators, to take a moment to think about how important it is and how precious it is to stand here as a senator in this Senate representing your state and, indeed, representing all Australians including First Nations people. Respect and acknowledgement go both ways. I urge all senators to remember who you work beside and who you walk with. Even when we disagree, we have a chamber here where we can discuss things in a manner that is far more respectful than we've seen in these previous days.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) (15:08): I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than five minutes.

Leave granted.

Senator HANSON: Senator McCarthy and the other members of the First Nations caucus, as you call yourselves, I do understand and respect that you are asking for respect as Australians. All One Nation, and the rest of the Australian people, wants is the same respect back—that is, that we are still part of this nation, that we are people who are born here and people who have migrated here. We also want acknowledgement and respect of this nation. To be constantly told, 'This is not your land,' or 'Always was, always will be Aboriginal land,' you are disenfranchising me and many other Australians.

The welcome to country was not culture or tradition; it was actually introduced into Australia by Ernie Dingo in the seventies in relation to New Zealand having the haka. Welcome to country has not been a tradition of this parliament and was only introduced in the last few years. This is not a stunt that I've pulled just this week. I have turned my back on it for the past three years. I am acknowledging the Australian people who voted against the Voice. They don't want the division that is happening in our country. They are fed up with welcome to country. They want to see an end to it. People don't want to arrive on a plane in every state across this nation and get a welcome to country. They don't want this division.

We have seen land handed back. We've seen Australians stopped from going to certain places in this country because they are not welcome there. This is their land. They can't go to Mount Warning or the Grampians. They can't go to certain parts. They can't do the things that every Australian should be entitled to. We are treated totally differently in many areas.

I understand the demise of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I've visited their communities. I've spoken to them. You haven't got the support of every Aboriginal for welcome to country. A lot of them out there have contacted me and said: 'We are over it as well. We don't want this division in our nation.' It's a stance that I've taken to speak up on behalf of those Australian people who don't want this division.

I don't want to have to do this, but the fact is that I am actually speaking up on behalf of the people who don't know how else to protest this. It's dividing us as a nation and as a people. I've said this right from the very beginning, when I came into parliament in 1996. My first statement was on equality for all Australians. But we're being treated totally differently. It doesn't matter whether it's education, jobs, welfare—whatever it is. There is no definition of Aboriginality. A lot of people claim to be an Aboriginal of this nation when they're not, because they can just say it. That needs to change.

As I've said before, and I will say it again, when you recognise and respect us and say that we accept you as our equals in this nation, that we are all Australians together—I never hear it. What protest do you hear when the Australian flag is burnt in protest? Why should that be allowed? That is not right. I've seen protests from Aboriginal people. I've seen the racism that has been thrown at me. I dare to raise issues and call for equality—so I'm supposedly the racist in this nation because I question things. That's not racism. Racism means that you believe your race to be superior to another. I have never ever indicated that at all. I question. All I have ever questioned is equality for all Australians, and I will stand by that.

I am the one who has gone to these communities and come back to see the minister for aboriginal affairs. I have advocated for jobs for the people at Uluru, Ayers Rock. I have advocated for housing up in North Queensland, at Bamaga. I have advocated for a lot of issues to do with Aboriginal people and the corruption that is going on within these communities—land councils and everything like that. I've advocated for these people. A lot of Aboriginals come to me— (Time expired)

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:13): I seek leave to make a statement of no more than five minutes.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted.

Senator WATERS: Well it's a bit rich to get a lecture on First Nations culture from the likes of Senator Pauline Hanson. It's also a bit rich to get a lecture about not wanting division from the likes of Pauline Hanson's One Nation. She seems entirely blind to her own privilege. It is not welcomes to country and acknowledgements of country that are dividing this nation; it is racism.

I stand in support of the statement made by Senator McCarthy—eloquently spoken, as always—and I note that we stand here on Ngunnawal and Ngambri land, over which sovereignty was never ceded, and that we should all take pride in the longest continuing culture on the planet and that that is a source of strength for all of us. It enriches all Australians.

I am pleased that we have an acknowledgment of country incorporated into our morning parliamentary processes, and I want to acknowledge that it took many years of many good people pushing for that before this chamber, as a whole, agreed to do that. That was a moment that made us all bigger, and I am proud of that moment.

I am also pleased that, after the discussion of respect in this chamber yesterday, this issue of the Pauline Hanson's One Nation senators turning their backs on an acknowledgement has been raised in that context. I note that it's not a censure motion, but I acknowledge that it was a respectful contribution made by Senator Malarndirri McCarthy.

I would like to finish by saying that the Greens are looking forward to working on issues to genuinely close the gap and looking forward to working on issues of the over-incarceration of First Nations people and the continued shameful record of Aboriginal deaths in custody, over which a really important royal commission report was drafted and has, sadly, gathered dust for far too long.

Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE (Northern Territory) (15:16): I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE: What concerns me, as an Indigenous Australian, as a member of this parliament, as to the issues that we are talking about right now, is the ideological way in which Indigenous Australians are objectified—and I mean, in such a way that we are used as a political token for political pointscoring. The idea of welcome to country has become exactly that.

Senator Hanson is correct to say that welcome to country is not traditional culture. It isn't. And what we do need to recognise is—and it is important for all of us, as leaders of this nation, to recognise—the reinvention of culture, which diminishes traditional culture.

For those who still live close to traditional culture, within cultural confines, their day-to-day lives are dictated by it. They speak their language. They are often spoken about in very romanticised terms. And the use of acknowledgements really does absolutely nothing to improve their lives and has done nothing to improve their lives.

To be quite honest, as a woman of Indigenous heritage but, first and foremost, as an Australian, I am absolutely done with the virtue signalling that takes place. I am of the belief that it is not necessary to have an acknowledgement, because we are all Australians. Every single one of us—including the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri—is Australian. We are here to serve all Australians equally in this country, not to praise or acknowledge one group above others. Truly, I don't think you really want to acknowledge my existence because of my indigeneity more than anybody else's. I am equal to you and to everybody else here and to everybody in this country.

So this is the main issue at heart. It's not standing up as a person of Indigenous heritage to say how we do things differently. We are people; we are human beings. We need to stop the infantilisation of who we are as a group of people, as though we're somehow different. We are not different. We are the same. We are Australian. And that is the sentiment that we need more of in this chamber, in this building and more broadly across this country, because it's no wonder our children are afraid to be proud to call themselves Australian.

I understand the significance of the conduct of One Nation, perhaps towards the chamber, towards the President. I acknowledge that. But, more broadly, when it comes to this concept of acknowledgment of country—'First Nations' isn't even Australian terminology, for crying out loud! It's been adopted from Canada, from America. It's just reinvention, which is actually belittling and watering down traditional culture and what it's really about.

But we can ignore traditional culture in this chamber—there are elements of it that every single one of you across from me ignore—because it's detrimental to the most marginalised in remote communities. If you speak up against it, if you mention it, you are painted as a racist or somebody who is a coconut or somebody who is a traitor. Imagine if we treated every single racial group in this manner in this country—it's horrendous.

It begins with virtue signalling—the politicisation of a group of people in this country, because of our racial heritage. And I'm sick to death of it, as a woman, as a mother, as a soon-to-be grandmother and as an Australian of proud heritage, whether it's my convict ancestors or my Warlpiri ancestors. I'm proud of it all, and we should all be. We should all encourage that in Australia in 2025.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:21): by leave—Senator Hanson speaks of division, but it is she who peddles division. Senator Hanson speaks of respect, but it is she who peddles disrespect. Senator Hanson, I listened carefully to what you had to say, and I would say this to you: you do not have to agree with the tradition of acknowledging country. I disagree with you—I think the majority of the chamber disagrees with you—but you do not have to agree with it. But it is part of the rituals and traditions of this chamber, and, as a senator, I think you should respect it. I think you should respect it.

Now, I also listened to the contribution just gone, and, I have to say, I was heartened to see the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Ley, attend the welcome to country at the opening of the parliament and state, at that opening, her respect and appreciation for Aunty Violet's welcome. Ms Ley said this:

May it set the tone as we recommit ourselves to the taking of practical action to improve lives and expand opportunities for Indigenous Australians in every part of our great country.

I would hope that the opposition would reflect on the words of their own leader in relation to welcomes to country.

There's been a lot said about what this chamber is, what this house is. It is a house for all Australians. It is. And it is a house that represents our history and our multicultural diversity, as well as the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the oldest in the world. I would end on this: decency and respect cost us nothing, but they go a long way to building a sense of unity. And, if you want to see what grace and respect look like, perhaps remember what Senator McCarthy said just a few moments ago. I don't intend to grant leave for any further statements, given the number—

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:24): Then I will ask for it and it can be denied. I seek leave to make a short statement no longer than Senator Wong's.

Leave granted.

Senator CASH: With all due respect, I did not want to make a statement in this place. I actually thought Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, Senator Pauline Hanson and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price each expressed their opinion in relation to this matter well. Their tone respected the chamber. Their words did not seek to diminish anybody else. Their opinions were heartfelt, and they were their opinions.

Each person is allowed to come into this chamber and hold an opinion. The turning of the back—I've spoken to Pauline Hanson about that; she knows my opinion. She accepts what I have said in relation to that. But let me tell you Senator Hanson has every right to hold her opinion in relation to what happens at the beginning of this chamber, and she is right. She is right. When I first came to this place, it was prayers; it was not a welcome to country. But I can tell you: do not ever demean anybody. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price—her mother's story; Bess Price. I suggest you all read it. A woman walking through the desert was her mother, who had her baby between her legs under a tree. She picked up her baby, she cut the umbilical cord and she kept walking. I suggest you read the story of Bess Price before you ever come in here and cast aspersions or tell us, Senator Wong, to respect other words. I will stand by and respect Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who every day has lived and breathed reconciliation in this country. Her father is white; her mother is black. So please don't ever come into this place again and pontificate to us like you've just done.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, senators. If there are no other contributions, I intend to move on.

MTF...P2

PS As of 23 hours after putting the above video on Aunty Pru's YouTube channel, there has now been over 52k views, 3.1k likes and 1.4k of comments, which are overwhelmingly positive for the debate contributions of both Senator Price and Senator Cash...