Politics without the tribalism. Balanced centre-right. Reason, evidence and principle — not slogans, outrage or personality cults. NO DM’s

Australia 🇦🇺🇦🇺
Joined April 2009
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐆𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐎𝐑-𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐒𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐀 𝐆𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐎𝐍 𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐃. If you’re too lazy or disinterested to actually inform yourself about how executive power operates in this country, here’s the simplified version! The Governor-General CANNOT simply dismiss an elected Prime Minister or remove a govt because she considers it incompetent. If she attempted to do so without a compelling constitutional justification, the Prime Minister could advise the King to dismiss her instead. Under Australia’s constitutional conventions, the monarch would ordinarily act on the advice of the elected Prime Minister, not an appointed Governor-General. The Governor-General’s reserve powers are NOT a mechanism for removing a Prime Minister or govt simply because people disapprove of its performance. Those powers may arise in exceptional constitutional circumstances, including Parliament blocking supply, a Prime Minister losing the confidence of the House of Representatives and refusing to resign, or other serious constitutional crises. AND HERE IS THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION. In the circumstances involving parliamentary confidence or supply, the constitutional trigger must arise through PARLIAMENT, NOT PUBLIC DEMAND. Public anger, petitions, protests or demands on social media do not constitute a parliamentary vote of no confidence or a refusal of supply. THE PEOPLE REMOVE GOVERNMENTS THROUGH ELECTIONS. THEY DO NOT INSTRUCT THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL TO REMOVE THEM BETWEEN ELECTIONS. The Governor-General is not there to overturn an election result because sections of the public dislike the govt or consider it incompetent. POLITICAL DISSATISFACTION ALONE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIGGER. And no amount of shouting, demanding or abusing the Governor-General changes that.
24
6
3
31
2,967
𝐁𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐣𝐢: $700𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐞-𝐂𝐎𝐏31 𝐒𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐥 𝐃𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐬 Labor spent almost $700,000 to hold a series of Pre-COP31 meetings and workshops at the five-star Sofitel Darling Harbour hotel in Sydney, a Senate estimates committee has heard. Liberal senator @SenSHenderson asked department officials on Monday about a limited tender, lodged in August, for hotel, lodging and meeting facilities worth $682,000. International climate negotiations division head Sally Box said the events were UNFCCC-mandated “to support the facilitation of negotiations in our role as president of negotiations”. $700,000 for a gabfest. I wonder how many more will hit the headlines before the global gabfest .. and well done to Sarah Henderson she is relentless in estimates..
4
3
11
346
Take a look at this shelf cloud. What an amazing shot..
3
3
20
357
Taylor reveals $31bn path to budget repair theaustralian.com.au/nation/… via @theaustralian
3
4
10
298
Kate🦋M© retweeted
Hands off Victoria Barracks! The Albanese Government should be strengthening our defence bases, not selling them off. We will fight to protect Victoria Barracks, preserve our heritage and honour the generations of Australians who have served our nation.
42
60
5
303
5,089
I don’t want to shatter your day but you do realise we’ve now crossed the less than two months to Christmas mark 🧑‍🎄
4
16
413
Kate🦋M© retweeted
Late night ramble… it’s Senate Estimates in a few hours. There’s just so much that could/should be tackled. Hard to know where to start. But having AEMO there makes it quite special. They don’t normally appear. So here are some thoughts.
I think this is evidence of our government-owned energy generator, Snowy Hydro, unethically gouging consumers. It might be legal. Maybe. But I think it's wrong. Electricity consumers and taxpayers should be furious. I pulled this data with the help of AI. This would be days or weeks of work a few years ago. Now getting all the data in the ideal format to understand takes just minutes. Much harder is figuring out what it actually means. I should hasten to say, I'm pro-market enough to hate it when people rail against 'price-gouging'. Provided the market isn't rigged, there's nothing wrong with sellers charging what they can. Prices are important signals. If the market's functioning properly, it will bring in new supply from competitors, and/or allocate limited supplies to those with greatest need. But in this case, I think the actions taken by Snowy Hydro show absolutely masterful exploitation of failures in our energy market, in particular transmission constraints and poor system design, which competitors have no means of correcting through new supply. Because the supply is fixed by a badly designed transmission build-out, competition is held away. The damning thing here is the change in the ramp-down rates. That's what makes the whole thing go from smart, and brutally self-interested manipulation of the market, to something that seems to me to be dishonest. That, set in the context of the counterprice flows, and the market intervention by @AEMO_Energy to impose constraints that would affect other competitors ability to provide power in the market. You see, the first thing you'd think of for re-bidding behaviour that's potentially profit-maximising, and hurting consumers, is raising your bids to higher prices, when you know that there's a shortage. That's child's play compared to what's going on here. At rebid 6, Snowy drops their bid down to negative values for half their capacity. (See green block start on bottom panel) Ie, "I'll pay people to take away my power". Surely lower bids helps lower prices right? Usually right, but here it's wrong. And this is where Snowy Hydro's market team shows they're true ninjas. They know that there's a bottle-neck so a bunch of power in Southern NSW can't reach Sydney, and push down prices at the reference point. So they bid super-low. Negative $1000. The minimum. That guarantees they get dispatched. The plebs in the wind-farms trying to get every MW they can out at a positive price would never take that kind of risk. So they bid negative, massively, to ensure that their power is flowing to market ahead of any other generator in Southern NSW. But that's only the opening move, and Snowy Hydro are thinking many steps ahead already. They would know the network well enough to know that turning their own pumps on in this part of the network will force power over the border into Victoria against price signals. Victoria has negative prices, NSW positive, at 13:40. Prior to this point, before Tumut 3 turns on, a bit of power is flowing from Vic to NSW, which is helpful. Their negative prices helps bid down NSW's positive prices. Which is good. Until... Tumut 3 turns on nearly 900MW in far-South NSW with their crazy-low bid. Then power starts flowing the wrong way, from positive prices to negative, over the Vic border. Promising generators they'd get paid to generate, then promising Victorian consumers they'd get paid to consumer NSW's excess. This "negative residue" starts to build up slowly at first. But as prices rise in NSW, as the afternoon heat builds, it speeds up a little. Then comes Snowy Hydro's next big move. Rebid 7 in the table. They push their entire 1.78GW generation capacity down to the floor price, so it gets dispatched. And this pushes a mass of electricity across the border at a pretty big counter-price delta. Snowy Hydro knows perfectly well what this does. It pushes the cumulative residues over a level where AEMO has a policy to intervene, imposing a constraint on the market to stop these negative residues building up too high, racking up bills for high priced generation in one state that no-one in the other state where the power landed agreed to pay for. Effectively the idea is to 'clamp' the interconnector to stop power flowing the wrong way across it. But you can't actually stop electrons by clamping the interconnector. You have to adjust the pushes and pulls of generators and loads to prevent the electric fields pushing power the wrong way. That means directing generators to switch off. And here's the real cunning in Snowy Hydro's plan. Because they had so obviously caused the mayhem by pushing nearly 2GW into the grid in a place where the power flowed over the border away from where it was really needed, surely AEMO's new constraints to prevent that flow would switch that generator (Tumut 3) straight back off? It was dispatching nothing an hour earlier. Surely they get switched off? Anticipating this, right back at rebid 6 Snowy had adjusted their ramp-down rates registered with the market operator. This is the step which crosses a line in my mind. Because I strongly suspect that nothing at all changed in the technical capability of Tumut 3 that meant that it couldn't be ramped down as fast as they had told the market they could do minutes before, and would tell the market they could do again just a few hours later. The reasons given mention nothing about technical problems. So this is done as a market move. They know this can make them money, but the truth is that their machinery could ramp at the same (high) rate throughout this episode, I assume. But by lowering their ramp rate down so far, to just 18MW/minute, they effectively meant that AEMO couldn't turn them off. They can only be gradually ramped down. They should've been the first ones turned off to prevent the counterprice flows, but they'd manipulated their ramp so that they couldn't be switched off. Consequently, all the other generators in Southern NSW got switched off in preference. And this drove prices sky-high, because Sydney needed energy. Prices reached over $20,000/MW in a couple of increments soon after. And, apparently, because the most badly positioned generator (Tumut 3) that was pumping out energy near the Victorian border couldn't be ramped down quickly, enormous 'negative residues' accrued, with a couple million in the 5 mins after AEMO notified the market of the constraint to (attempt to) limit the counterprice flows. And, more than a million ten minutes later. These 'residues' just get lumped onto network charges, and end up being paid by consumers. So it's pretty clear that Snowy Hydro's re-bid limiting the ramp rate caused those additional negative residues to arrive, hurting consumers directly. But also very likely, though there are few more moving parts involved and hence just slightly harder to say with certainty, the bidding behaviour here, which triggered the market intervention to clamp the interconnector to Victoria, almost certainly contributed to the price volatility reaching such extreme peaks in NSW. That would be a much, much more significant cost to consumers, I've seen estimates from @EnergyWrapAU putting Snowy's windfall at around $15 million in one hot hour. So this I think crosses a line for me. Because the changed ramp-down rate is almost certainly made-up, reflecting nothing in their machinery at all, and because they knowingly caused bad outcomes for consumers on the way to getting paid that otherwise wouldn't have occurred (the counter-price flows for sure, and the price spike almost certainly) I don't think it's ethical behaviour for any generator, and certainly not one owned by taxpayers. I strongly suspect that if Snowy Hydro had left Tumut 3 with their bids as they were at 13:30, that the counterprice flows would have been far more moderate, possibly not triggering an intervention. And also NSW wind generators a little closer to Sydney would have done a better job meeting rising demand, and prices might have risen a bit, but to nothing like the extend that they actually did when they were forcibly switched off while Snowy Hydro was running Tumut 3 which was sending power the wrong way over the border into Victoria. Because they couldn't be switched off because of the manipulated ramp-rates.
7
21
2
107
4,428
There is a passage in this column that really struck a chord with me. And it raises a question I’ve been asking for years. What on earth did adults think would happen when impressionable children were repeatedly told that the planet was heading towards Armageddon, that their future was disappearing & that previous generations had effectively destroyed their prospects? For years, the climate change doom merchants & the idealistic acolytes of the Church of Climate Change have relentlessly promoted a narrative of impending catastrophe. And we wonder why so many young people are angry, anxious, disillusioned & increasingly rejecting the society they have inherited. This quote from a student organiser in France is particularly revealing: “The anger we see among youths today has to do with rejecting a society where there’s no future.” Now, I’m not suggesting climate alarmism is the sole cause of that sentiment. Economic insecurity, housing affordability, unemployment & declining confidence in political institutions all contribute. But surely we cannot ignore the psychological consequences of raising a generation on a steady diet of fear, catastrophe & hopelessness. There is an enormous difference between educating young people about genuine challenges & convincing them that their future is effectively over before it has even begun. One encourages understanding, resilience & solutions. The other risks breeding despair, resentment & anger. And my God, we are reaping the consequences of that now. With the Yellow Vests returning to the streets of France & joining the student unrest, along with the sinister red/green/islamist alliance this is no longer simply a protest about individual grievances. It reflects something far deeper. wsj.com/world/europe/the-yel…
5
5
31
446
𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐮𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. There’s an interesting irony in this. Perhaps Victorian voters have finally reached the point where they’ve had enough turmoil. After years of Labor govt, they want change, but not at the expense of creating even more instability. They want adults running the show, even if the leader happens to be young. And perhaps that’s the distinction. They want a credible alternative, not simply another group of angry wreckers promising to tear everything down. The Liberals & Nationals have put their ideological battles aside to unite behind Jess Wilson, offering dissatisfied voters an alternative to the incumbent govt. But the most revealing finding is that 78% of Coalition & One Nation voters surveyed prioritised having a strong new govt over shaking up the political system. Even among One Nation supporters, that figure was 71%. That suggests something rather important. Dissatisfaction with the political establishment doesn’t necessarily mean voters want to destroy the institutions that underpin it. They may simply want those institutions to function better, with experienced leadership capable of delivering results. There’s still a long way to go in Victoria, but perhaps voters are beginning to distinguish between change for the sake of change & change that offers the prospect of better govt. Sadly, federally, that distinction seems considerably harder to achieve. And perhaps that’s the real lesson. People can be thoroughly disillusioned with those governing them without having lost faith in the system of govt itself. Because that’s what understanding the importance of a functioning govt means. Recognising that the answer to poor governance is better governance, not the destruction of the institutions that make it possible. Destroying the joint doesn’t fix what’s broken. It simply leaves you with even more to rebuild. theaustralian.com.au/comment… via @australian
3
4
1
19
462
If you missed this yesterday it really is worth a read.
Address to the Western Australian Liberal Party State Conference from @AngusTaylorMP. One of the best addresses I’ve read. angustaylor.com.au/media/add…
128
Another Leak special..
1
48
3
146
1,408
Congratulations, I feel, are in order. 😂😂 After nearly two weeks, I FINALLY managed to obtain a urine sample from Aslan. 🐈 He won’t use the crystal or sand collection kits, so in our house it’s the old-fashioned method. That involves me racing into the garage, little jar in hand, ready to swoop. Of course, this requires either being in the right place at precisely the right time or possessing the ears of a bat to hear the scratching in the litter box. There is absolutely NOTHING dignified about this process. For either of us. Poor Aslan is simply trying to go about his private business, while his mother is hovering over him, lifting his tail & desperately hoping she’s angled the jar in the right spot to catch the precious liquid. 😂😂 Anyway, THE DEED IS DONE! 🏆 The stress is over, my dignity is somewhere in the garage & the timing couldn’t be better. I’ll drop my hard-won prize off at the vet this morning, with the results ready for Aslan’s next appointment tomorrow. The things we do for those we love. ❤️🐾
14
2
46
660
Good morning possums 😊
4
1
19
375
Kate🦋M© retweeted
3
4
13
183
SYDNEY: Moorebank shooting: Shots fired into south-western Sydney home with children inside. Cars set alight!! There were seven children in this house. The poor little kids age between 3 & 10 thankfully were uninjured but they must have been terrified. smh.com.au/national/nsw/manh…
1
2
1
8
329
😂😂😂😂 I think this is true ..
2
1
16
448
Kate🦋M© retweeted
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established 38 years ago, ostensibly as a neutral agency to gather objective scientific information on climate. Instead, it became the focused, driving force behind the greatest environmental and social upheaval in modern history. From day one, the IPCC was a highly politicised body. Founded entirely by United Nations agencies - the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme - it gave the UN complete administrative control over the climate agenda. The sheer complexity of the machinery combined with the aura of technical secrecy is precisely what insulates it from scrutiny. The WMO bridges the gap between raw meteorological data, international political agendas and the media. By linking thousands of land stations, ocean buoys, aircraft and satellites, its role is to share critical weather and water data. However, this infrastructure was co-opted into a public relations framework. Consequently, the world has been bombarded with overhyped weather hysteria for almost 40 years. Mainstream news outlets routinely prioritise speculative, worst-case climate models over empirical observations, maintaining a permanent state of crisis designed to shape public compliance. Climate management bears no relation to the UN’s foundational charter of resolving international conflict; this is a textbook case of bureaucratic mission creep. Nor are UN agencies passive coordinators. Through the WMO, they ensured a crisis framework became the baseline for all weather reporting. Local weather outlets and national agencies now operate inside an ecosystem heavily influenced by overarching, high-alarm targets, broadcasting continuous warnings of global boiling, sea level rises, and a 'Code Red for Mankind' - with UN leadership acting as the chief amplifier. The IPCC did not recruit independent scientific staff; instead, its administrative apparatus became active in sponsoring and selecting studies that supported the carbon dioxide hypothesis. Research raising questions or doubts was minimised or discarded. Critics found their work starved of publishers, and in some cases, university tenures were threatened. This environment birthed foundational, highly charged studies designed to lock in future warming projections. Among the earliest was the 1999 'hockey stick' graph by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, which erased historical temperature variations to present a sharp, unprecedented upward spike in the twentieth century. For decades, the institution promoted worst-case scenarios. A prime example is the IPCC's 2011 report warning of a 5.5-degree temperature rise - a prediction so extreme that mainstream scientists have finally conceded it was implausible and quietly withdrawn it. Yet the pattern of reliance on flawed models over real-world observation had already been set. Armed with this manufactured crisis, the UN called for the rapid dismantling of hydrocarbon fuels - coal, oil and natural gas - which had lifted humanity out of stagnation and powered the Industrial Revolution. Almost every aspect of modern civilisation, from transport networks to manufacturing plants, relies entirely on these dense, inexpensive, and reliable energy sources. The proposed replacements - intermittent wind and solar - have proven fundamentally incapable of providing raw baseload power. Yet the push to phase out hydrocarbons has marched forward regardless, driving the planned decline of heavy industrial production, severe economic downturns, and widespread job losses across Western nations. By establishing the IPCC, the UN created a centralised machinery that successfully synthesised climate science into a global political weapon - sacrificing empirical reality on the altar of bureaucratic expansion.
108
685
70
1,361
17,911
I picked this up on my ground camera this morning. And I shouldn’t laugh but poor little Aslan was pecked on the butt by a magpie this morning. 😊😊 I'm really pleased he's starting treatment on Tuesday. Hopefully, once the underlying problem is under control, he'll begin putting some weight back on. 🧡
6
32
849
I think I’m losing it. On my iPhone I have my solar battery tracker on the home page On my new iPad I also have a battery tracker on the home page I’ve been sitting here wondering why my battery tracker on my iPad is displaying less stored power than I thought I should have. It’s a hot day and here’s me thinking I must be serving up to the VPP - virtual power plant. Pressed the tracker and it didn’t take me to the app. Red faced 💡lightbulb💡 moment when it dawned on me that the tracker on my iPad is the iPad battery tracker NOT my solar battery 😂😂 It has been one of those weeks Sometimes the problem isn't that life is complicated. It's just that we're looking in the wrong place. 😂😂
2
16
570
THE QUESTION IS. ARE WE PREPARED TO START CHANGING OUR BEHAVIOUR & STOP BLAMING EVERYONE FOR IT? Chris Uhlmann argues that the brutal attack on independent MP Helen Haines is not simply an assault on an individual, but an assault on Australian democracy itself. When elected representatives can no longer move freely among the people they serve, something fundamental has been lost. Drawing on comments from ASIO director-general Mike Burgess & former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty, Uhlmann examines the growing coarsening of Australian society. Abuse, intolerance & hostility have become increasingly normalised, from social media to workplaces, shops & public life. Burgess warns that unchecked behaviour creates an environment in which violence becomes easier to contemplate. ASIO’s caseload involving potential violence has increased significantly, with Islamic violent extremism accounting for two-thirds of its counter-terrorism work. Other threats arise from grievances & extremist ideologies across the political spectrum. Uhlmann traces Australia’s long history of political violence, demonstrating that extremism is neither new nor confined to one political persuasion. What distinguishes today is the speed with which online hatred spreads, radicalising individuals who may turn to violence with little warning. He is particularly critical of the political left’s willingness to excuse violence committed in pursuit of causes it supports, singling out the Greens. His central argument, however, applies equally to everyone: condemning the behaviour of opponents is easy; confronting the behaviour of allies is the real test of principle. He also draws an important distinction between legitimate protest & intimidation. Freedom of speech does not confer an unrestricted right to harass, threaten or obstruct others. Both Burgess & Keelty argue that policing alone cannot reverse this deterioration. Responsibility rests with the entire community, including political, religious & educational leaders, to restore respect, personal responsibility & the values underpinning our democracy. Uhlmann’s overriding message is that democracy depends on more than institutions, elections & laws. It depends on the conduct of its citizens, their willingness to tolerate disagreement & their refusal to excuse hatred or violence, regardless of who perpetrates it. The attack on Helen Haines should be a moment of national reflection. The question is whether we are prepared to change our behaviour, rather than simply condemn the behaviour of others. theaustralian.com.au/inquire… via @australian
5
6
1
13
581
Address to the Western Australian Liberal Party State Conference from @AngusTaylorMP. One of the best addresses I’ve read. angustaylor.com.au/media/add…
3
2
2
17
583