Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have just concluded the expenditure of $40.2 billion to build patrol boats and drones. You, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, would know that 15 machine guns are the only lethal ordinance that we got with the expenditure of that $40 billion. The head of the armed forces has reportedly issued instructions that they're not allowed to use the word 'kill'. Well that's a rather intriguing concept, that we have an army that's not allowed to use the word 'kill', and it's in keeping with the expenditure of $40.2 billion without any ability to kill the enemy. What conceivable purpose is there in having 15 patrol boats and hundreds of drones when nothing can deliver ordinance to actually confront the enemy with lethal force. This is obviously in keeping with the paradigm of the new Army under the head of the armed forces. It was directed that they do not use the word 'kill'.

Apart from the wastage of $40 billion, every one of those patrol boats could have been made in such a way that they would carry 40 missiles. A patrol boat can go out probably 1,000 kilometres, and that gives you an advanced perimeter, 1,000 kilometres from Australia. That weaponry can go another 600 to 700 kilometres beyond that range. So you now have a fortress perimeter around. There is no defence of Australia without the essential services. As Admiral Blackburn in the NRMA report said, what is the point in having a tank or a truck if you've got no fuel for it? If ever there is an indictment of the people in this place, we have three per cent self sufficiency of fuel. One might say, 'Oh, but no-one would cut our fuel off. 'Well, guess what forced the Japanese into war? Guess what the European war was about? It was about Hitler trying to get to the oilfields. Stalingrad was the gateway to the oilfields, and, too bad for Adolf, he didn't make it. The Japanese had their oil embargoed by America. They had to fight or retreat into a second-rate power regime, so they decided to fight. That is the importance of oil but, to the Australian parliament, it doesn't seem to have any relevance at all. To the Australian government, it is of no importance at all.

The crossbenches will be putting forward pretty simple legislation, really, to ban the export of oil like every other country does while having a reserved resource policy of 27 per cent. We were at three per cent self-sufficiency and are now at 27 per cent self-sufficient. We will own also, by law, the refineries; (2) all waste in Australia under pyrolysis would be—the same as the Germans did in the last two years of the war—converted into diesel; (3) all motor vehicles in metropolitan areas, government motor vehicles in metropolitan areas—I emphasise government and metropolitan—will be electric, made in Australia by Australian-owned companies, as will the batteries. Now we would be at 70 per cent self-sufficiency. The rest would be provided by algae, ethanol, pyrolysis. We have 320 million hectares of prickly trees in North Queensland which, at this moment, in a minor way, is being converted into valuable product. Do those things and you would be 100 per cent self-sufficient in oil.

If you think, 'Oh, China wouldn't do that to us,' they did it to us the Christmas before last. Some imbecile in Canberra had said every litre of diesel had to carry AdBlue, which is a urea derivative. The only supplier was China. China decided it would be good fun, because they didn't like Mr Morrison, to cut off our diesel fuel. So the day after Christmas—choose the date—they said no more AdBlue, so every truck in Australia was going to cease to operate. What sort of a country does this? (Time expired)

See this speech in context