Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Own a business?

Take control of your energy costs

Renewing the renewable energy debate

Kim Fischer 27 July 2015 80

wind

Regardless of whether you think that using clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar is the “right” thing to do for our environment, within a few years it’s going to be the smart thing to do financially.

Renewable energy has become a hot topic for both Federal and ACT politicians. The Federal Government has directed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to stop investing in rooftop solar and wind farms, with Joe Hockey chiming in to the debate with complaints about the aesthetics of the wind farm at Lake George.

Meanwhile, Bill Shorten has just announced that the Federal ALP will adopt a target of 50 per cent renewable energy for Australia by 2030.

Initiatives to increase renewable energy use often face scare campaigns about the high costs of adoption. However, these campaigns ignore the incredibly rapid improvements in renewable energy technology. Just in the last five years wind power generation costs have dropped by more than half, and solar generation costs have dropped by nearly 80 per cent.

Wind power generation costs are now almost identical to coal and in the best case scenarios, substantially cheaper. While rooftop solar installations still require a substantial feed-in tariff to be financially attractive, larger “utility-scale” solar installations are cost-competitive. With innovations like the 1.5MW solar power plant in a box, solar power today is a simple and scalable way for countries to increase their power generation capacity.

The second common objection to renewable power is that it cannot be a base load power source – that is, to provide continuous energy at low cost. However, wind farms spread over a large geographic area are actually a very consistent power supply because there is always wind somewhere. Solar power also works well because the sun shines brightest during peak periods of electricity usage. New technologies such as molten salt thermal storage are also proving to be an effective way to store excess solar power for delivery to properties at night.

The ACT Labor Government is leading the country with its goal of getting 90 per cent of Canberra’s power from renewable energy by 2020. The Government already purchases power from a number of solar and wind power sources, with the locally built utility-scale Royalla Solar Farm opening in September last year.

After a second Australia-wide auction to purchase additional wind energy, two-thirds of Canberra’s energy will come from wind and solar power sources. Even once 90 per cent of Canberra’s power comes from renewable sources, household power bills are only predicted to rise modestly, with household energy-efficiency initiatives helping to offset the impact of price rises.

When it comes to renewable energy, it is now clear that Tony Abbott and the Liberals are on the wrong side of history. Given that the cost of wind and solar power will continue to decrease, within 15-20 years the debate on whether renewable energy is a good idea or not will seem as old-fashioned as anyone who thought the introduction of universal health care was a bad idea.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
80 Responses to
Renewing the renewable energy debate
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
dungfungus 4:15 pm 28 Jul 15

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

The “rebate” is not a “subsidy” but a return when the fuel is not used on the nations roads. Examples are for farm tractors, harvesters, mine equipment or generators etc.
If you have been reading the papers in the last few days you may have noticed that there is an unfounded liability on defined benfit pensions due to Federal public servants totalling $100 billion AFTER the Future Fund has been deducted.
That is a taxpayer funded subsidy.

So, the excise is returned if the fuel is not used on road. That equals $$$ being returned. C’mon, that is a subsidy.

A subsidy is paid up front which is not the case with this.

chewy14 3:59 pm 28 Jul 15

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

justsomeaussie said :

The Australian government through your and my taxes gives $41 billion dollars in subsidies to the coal and gas markets. $41 billion dollars and you lot come on here and quibble about subsides for renewables.

http://smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-expense-attacked-as-australia-gifts-41-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150725-gijsvh

I hope the detractors realise that coal and gas can only get more expensive to mine as the low hanging fruit is already gone whereas the point with renewable is that it’s we’ll renewable.

So if you are talking about the economy, how about we remove the $41 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and let them stand on their own legs and invest the money elsewhere.

It’s actually interesting reading the report and the data that this is based on rather than just a headline figure.
In this research a large amount of this subsidy in Australia is due to the effects that climate change is predicted (using some broad assumptions) to have on the planet and our country. By far the major world wide subsidy is on local environmental and air pollution effects causing health problems in the community.

For Australia, this is why we need a global agreement on reducing carbon emissions because anything that Australia does unilaterally will have almost zero effect on the overall cost of climate change to our country. ie. Australia can’t actually reduce these subsidies by any meaningful amount because we don’t control other country’s emissions.

The other main subsidies are almost solely related to car use through petroleum subsidies related around air pollution, congestion and roads. Better public transport and car technologies are the only things that will fix these, it doesn’t have much relation to overall energy production.

The actual direct subsidy cost to the government budget is very small due to the fact that most of these costs are externalities that we aren’t currently paying for (or expecting later generations to pay for).

There is the big lie. That somehow we are doing too much. We are in fact amongst the worst polluters per head of population. BY FAR:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

It would be even worse except for the very effective reductions put in place by Labor and the Greens.

This tired old argument is just a really cynical excuse, and delaying tactic, to do nothing.

The conservatives seem to have no problem with dropping trade barriers unilaterally left right and centre which has so blatently and obviously destroyed so much of our industry.

Guess it comes down to “what’s in it for me”, when that “me” is the tiny number of people benefitting from coal mining and polluting policies.

How can you fall for the same old lies of employment and (one off) economic benefits. Mining is mostly overwhelmingly owned by overseas interests, nearly all the money goes overseas, employs bugger all people (even the trains don’t have drivers) and is footing us with the bill for consequences of their mistakes, if you can call deliberate, willful policy mistakes.

Please point out where I said we are doing “too much”?

It’s also convenient when people use their favourite denominator for these type of things depending on their argument. If you want a small denominator for Australia, then go for per capita, if you want a big one then go for GDP. The facts are Australian emissions are only a fraction of global emissions.

And plese point out the factual errors in my comment rather than going off on a tangent about an argument I never made nor suggested. If Australia reduces our Carbon emissions to zero overnight, what effect will that have on the subsidy figures for global warming effects in the linked report?

Your kind of strawman argument is exactly what I’m arguing against. I’m specifically saying we should act but that are actions need to be commensurate with the risks, the costs and the benefits. We need to enact a global agreement to solve the problem and we need to invest in technology development to allow us to transition to a low carbon future.

If you’re arguing that we should do more than that then you are specifically suggesting that we throw away money for your ideological beliefs rather than any factual scientific or economic reasons.

justsomeaussie 3:16 pm 28 Jul 15

Oh dear someone can’t be wrong.

Here is a starting point. Using the internetz it took me 5 seconds to write “tax credits for fossil fuel industry” into the Google to reveal a wealth of information from a wide range of sources (including federal and state governments).

YOU TOO CAN INFORM YOURSELF!

Please note that for reference one thousand million is a billion. So below is a lazy $11 billion is the estimated amount of subsidies that the fossil fuel gets.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/feb/02/fossil-fuel-subsidies-tony-abbott-spc-ardmona-corporate-welfare

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/fuelenergy/submissions/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0021_pdf.ashx

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-companies-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

http://environmentvictoria.org.au/newsite/sites/default/files/useruploads/MF%20and%20EV%202013%20polluter%20handouts%20assessment%20FINAL-4.pdf

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/G20_fossil_fuel_subsidies_25-6-10.pdf
Assessment of Federal taxation-based fossil fuel subsidies

Fuel tax credits scheme (total) $5,919 million
Statutory effective life caps (accelerated depreciation) $1,390 million
Energy Security Fund – payments and free permits to the most carbon intensive power stations $1,026
Concessional rate of excise levied on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel $1,000 million
Fringe Benefits Tax – Application of statutory formula to value car benefits $870 million
Exploration and prospecting deduction $400 million
Carbon Price Mechanism thresholds for obligations* $55 million
FBT – Exemption for employee taxi travel to or from their place of work* $55 million
GST – Tourism; domestic air or sea travel* $55 million
PRRT – expenditure uplift rate* $55 million
PRRT – gas transfer price regulations* $55 million
PRRT – starting base and uplift rate for capital assets* $55 million
Shipping – investment incentives* $55 million
Carbon Price Mechanism uncovered sectors – Decommissioned mines $55 million
FBT – Discounted valuation for car parking fringe benefits $30 million
FBT – Discounted valuation of travel for airline employees and travel agents $21 million
Alternatives to the logbook method of substantiating car expenses* $10 million
FBT – Exemption for minor private use of company motor vehicle* $5 million
FBT – Exemption for transport for oil rig and remote area employees in certain circumstances* $5 million
Capital expenditure deduction for mining, quarrying and petroleum operations $5million
Total Expenditure $11,068 million

bryansworld 3:04 pm 28 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

The “rebate” is not a “subsidy” but a return when the fuel is not used on the nations roads. Examples are for farm tractors, harvesters, mine equipment or generators etc.
If you have been reading the papers in the last few days you may have noticed that there is an unfounded liability on defined benfit pensions due to Federal public servants totalling $100 billion AFTER the Future Fund has been deducted.
That is a taxpayer funded subsidy.

So, the excise is returned if the fuel is not used on road. That equals $$$ being returned. C’mon, that is a subsidy.

rubaiyat 2:51 pm 28 Jul 15

You can just make out the Shentou Coal Fired Power Plant though the haze of the smog and the surrounding fly ash smothered landscape.

http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/PageFiles/301087/coal-ash-08-shentou-plant.jpg

rubaiyat 2:39 pm 28 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

What does a trailer load at the tip cost us poor non-corporate schmucks?

A trailer load of what?

Your “facts”!

rubaiyat 2:37 pm 28 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

The “rebate” is not a “subsidy” but a return when the fuel is not used on the nations roads. Examples are for farm tractors, harvesters, mine equipment or generators etc.
If you have been reading the papers in the last few days you may have noticed that there is an unfounded liability on defined benfit pensions due to Federal public servants totalling $100 billion AFTER the Future Fund has been deducted.
That is a taxpayer funded subsidy.

It’s a subsidy. Exclusively for mates of the Liberal/National Parties.

Just as the tree planting “bonus” was pork barrelling by Johnny Howard. The only people who had enough land and could apply were farmers. The ones who were really laughing were the Pitt Street farmers I knew who were bragging about they stuck them in the ground, they all died and they got a big fat check. Olive “farms” popped up everywhere suddenly, as did almonds, anything that was a tree.

On the other hand it was all systems go, chopping down the more environmentally valuable old growth forests.

How have they established where and how the fuel is used? They fitted an “Off Road” meter?

Does the ACT householder get a “rebate” on their “Off-Road” heating oil?

All you do is make up a plausible excuse or set of arbitrary “rules” that fit what your mates want and hey its “Policy”. Share a Grange with the minister and you are no longer a leaner, you are lifter!

dungfungus 2:26 pm 28 Jul 15

rubaiyat said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

What does a trailer load at the tip cost us poor non-corporate schmucks?

A trailer load of what?

dungfungus 2:22 pm 28 Jul 15

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

I can’t see any pollution; where is it?

dungfungus 2:21 pm 28 Jul 15

Postalgeek said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-companies-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

Apparently that’s per year.

This generalises a claimed situation, apparently.
How about you supply actual details of what the subsides, grants are, which companies got them etc.

dungfungus 2:16 pm 28 Jul 15

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

The “rebate” is not a “subsidy” but a return when the fuel is not used on the nations roads. Examples are for farm tractors, harvesters, mine equipment or generators etc.
If you have been reading the papers in the last few days you may have noticed that there is an unfounded liability on defined benfit pensions due to Federal public servants totalling $100 billion AFTER the Future Fund has been deducted.
That is a taxpayer funded subsidy.

Postalgeek 2:05 pm 28 Jul 15

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-companies-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

Apparently that’s per year.

rubaiyat 2:04 pm 28 Jul 15

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

What does a trailer load at the tip cost us poor non-corporate schmucks?

rubaiyat 2:02 pm 28 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

bryansworld 1:44 pm 28 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

justsomeaussie 1:01 pm 28 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Quid pro quo my friend. First provide examples on the evidence you need to admit you are wrong on man made climate change.

dungfungus 12:02 pm 28 Jul 15

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

rubaiyat 11:53 am 28 Jul 15

chewy14 said :

justsomeaussie said :

The Australian government through your and my taxes gives $41 billion dollars in subsidies to the coal and gas markets. $41 billion dollars and you lot come on here and quibble about subsides for renewables.

http://smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-expense-attacked-as-australia-gifts-41-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150725-gijsvh

I hope the detractors realise that coal and gas can only get more expensive to mine as the low hanging fruit is already gone whereas the point with renewable is that it’s we’ll renewable.

So if you are talking about the economy, how about we remove the $41 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and let them stand on their own legs and invest the money elsewhere.

It’s actually interesting reading the report and the data that this is based on rather than just a headline figure.
In this research a large amount of this subsidy in Australia is due to the effects that climate change is predicted (using some broad assumptions) to have on the planet and our country. By far the major world wide subsidy is on local environmental and air pollution effects causing health problems in the community.

For Australia, this is why we need a global agreement on reducing carbon emissions because anything that Australia does unilaterally will have almost zero effect on the overall cost of climate change to our country. ie. Australia can’t actually reduce these subsidies by any meaningful amount because we don’t control other country’s emissions.

The other main subsidies are almost solely related to car use through petroleum subsidies related around air pollution, congestion and roads. Better public transport and car technologies are the only things that will fix these, it doesn’t have much relation to overall energy production.

The actual direct subsidy cost to the government budget is very small due to the fact that most of these costs are externalities that we aren’t currently paying for (or expecting later generations to pay for).

There is the big lie. That somehow we are doing too much. We are in fact amongst the worst polluters per head of population. BY FAR:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

It would be even worse except for the very effective reductions put in place by Labor and the Greens.

This tired old argument is just a really cynical excuse, and delaying tactic, to do nothing.

The conservatives seem to have no problem with dropping trade barriers unilaterally left right and centre which has so blatently and obviously destroyed so much of our industry.

Guess it comes down to “what’s in it for me”, when that “me” is the tiny number of people benefitting from coal mining and polluting policies.

How can you fall for the same old lies of employment and (one off) economic benefits. Mining is mostly overwhelmingly owned by overseas interests, nearly all the money goes overseas, employs bugger all people (even the trains don’t have drivers) and is footing us with the bill for consequences of their mistakes, if you can call deliberate, willful policy mistakes.

chewy14 11:38 am 28 Jul 15

justsomeaussie said :

The Australian government through your and my taxes gives $41 billion dollars in subsidies to the coal and gas markets. $41 billion dollars and you lot come on here and quibble about subsides for renewables.

http://smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-expense-attacked-as-australia-gifts-41-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150725-gijsvh

I hope the detractors realise that coal and gas can only get more expensive to mine as the low hanging fruit is already gone whereas the point with renewable is that it’s we’ll renewable.

So if you are talking about the economy, how about we remove the $41 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and let them stand on their own legs and invest the money elsewhere.

It’s actually interesting reading the report and the data that this is based on rather than just a headline figure.
In this research a large amount of this subsidy in Australia is due to the effects that climate change is predicted (using some broad assumptions) to have on the planet and our country. By far the major world wide subsidy is on local environmental and air pollution effects causing health problems in the community.

For Australia, this is why we need a global agreement on reducing carbon emissions because anything that Australia does unilaterally will have almost zero effect on the overall cost of climate change to our country. ie. Australia can’t actually reduce these subsidies by any meaningful amount because we don’t control other country’s emissions.

The other main subsidies are almost solely related to car use through petroleum subsidies related around air pollution, congestion and roads. Better public transport and car technologies are the only things that will fix these, it doesn’t have much relation to overall energy production.

The actual direct subsidy cost to the government budget is very small due to the fact that most of these costs are externalities that we aren’t currently paying for (or expecting later generations to pay for).

rubaiyat 11:31 am 28 Jul 15

Of course when the Fossil Fuel corporations do have to face the inevitable as James Hardy had to over asbestos, they will quickly pull up roots and move to the Netherlands, or whatever refuge for the guilty is available, to escape the consequences of their own actions and massive lies.

…and EVERYONE ELSE will have to pay to fix the damage they did.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site