There's a certain rat cunning to the way the reptiles at the lizard Oz go about their business.
Conduct a raging jihad demanding immediate action after a terror attack, set the pollies running, and as soon as they're off, get them coming and going.
Measures to curb hate speech? Howl for them, then proceed to fret and worry ...
So this day ...
Labor in need of Greens light as hate speech bill stalls
Labor’s hate speech laws in need of a Greens light as Liberals harden opposition
The bill hangs in the balance as Coalition concerns mount and looming negotiations with Greens threaten to derail the reforms.
And ...
Talks held on discrimination laws days before Bondi attack
Government urges faith groups to lobby Coalition to revive religious discrimination bill
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland has met religious groups seeking to revive shelved discrimination laws, telling faith leaders they must convince the Coalition to back reforms.
By Elizabeth Pike and Sarah Ison
So leave it up to the coalition of clowns to set the pace?
Flying in from the extreme far right, the meretricious Merritt struck ...
The death toll from Bondi is the most compelling argument in favour of abolishing the freedom to promote racial hatred. But not like this.
By Chris Merritt
Legal Affairs Contributor
The pond is inclined to the libertarian side of free speech - how else is an atheist going to be allowed to abuse barking mad religious fundamentalists of all stripes? - but has felt no need to follow the reptiles' jihad, nor now their counter-jihad.
Surely the reptiles - always willing to get into 18C trouble - knew where this was heading, and knew the end game would be a turning on anything the government proposed.
But ignoring this lobster quadrille leaves the pond scrabbling for reptile content.
Over on the extreme far right, Jack the Insider was no help:
Our creatives have become increasingly censorious in recent decades. The left is not what it was.
Nah ... if there's a rag in this land which routinely shows a singular lack of a sensa huma, it's the lizard Oz, though petulant Peta wasn't on hand this day to prove the pond's point.
The barking mad far right isn't what it was either, what with this entire fuss being set off by a wretched behind the scenes cancel culture mob caving to Zionists, enabled by a dropkick parochial premier blathering about inclusivity and peace and love ...
The best that Jack has got is to relive that ancient Lady Chatterley's war ... such a tiresome descent into nostalgia, which almost set the pond off on The Naked Lunch and Henry Miller, way more interesting than Lawrence's worst novel.
Luckily Jack can always take a squiz at his deep nude fakes collection on X to show he's still a game lad.
That still left the pond wondering what to do.
Once again the pond was saved by its determination to keep correspondents up to date with the thoughts of the bromancer.
Yesterday's outing was just three minutes long - so the reptiles clocked it - and was a minor outing by bromancer standards, but what a lifesaver.
While the pond felt the need to catch up with the Lynch mob in a late arvo post, caution made the pond hold the bromancer back. Thursday is usually a wretched day for reptile spotting, and the pond thought it wise to hold on to the bromancer, keep him in reserve, and play him today:
The header: Kevin Rudd is a major figure in global China policy and Anthony Albanese is weaker for losing him; Kevin Rudd is more hardheaded, better informed and strategically more tough-minded on China than anyone else in the Albanese government. His departure is a serious loss.
The caption for the incredible uncredited artwork featuring comrade Kev: Each ambassador has his or her own strengths and weaknesses. Kevin Rudd was overall a net plus. Pictures: News Corp/iStock
As for the actual text, who knew that the bromancer had belatedly discovered that Chairman Russ was his hero?
Back in the day the bromancer was keen on chairman Rudd conspiracies, as celebrated by Mungo MacCallum in Crikey way back on 30th March 2009
Rudd, Manning Clark, Mata Hari and Greg Sheridan; The Australian media sees a good spy story as only slightly less jeans-creaming than a good leadership story, writes Mungo MacCallum. (sorry, that's a paywall)
No, he’s not interested in the polls, he’s concentrating on jobs and the economy. Well, that’s what he’s concentrating on deep down. What he’s actually talking about up front is the Chinese connection with Kevin Rudd’s government.
This does not mean he is trying to revive memories of Reds under the Bed or the Yellow Peril, let alone to combine them into a present day Orange Menace — any such suggestion is contemptible. No, it’s a matter of the national interest that Rudd had a meeting with a Chinese official which the Chinese media knew about but the Australian media didn’t, and that Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon had two trips to China paid for by his friend Helen Liu and forgot to declare them on his parliamentary register.
To the normal mind all this proves is that Fitzgibbon was a bit sloppy (Tony Abbott’s term) in his accounting. The Minister has rightly been reprimanded and is now on a warning, which is as it should be; in spite of what Abbott claims, his offence was never a hanging one, even in John Howard’s first term when he actually dismissed junior (not senior) ministers for breaches of his code of conduct — later, of course, Howard abandoned standards altogether.
And Rudd’s desire for occasional confidentiality may annoy the press gallery, but given their collective reaction to the current hiccup in a hurricane, who can blame him? Sections of the media have tried to turn Liu into some kind of Mata Hari figure, a sinister if inscrutable Oriental infiltrating the very heart of the Australian government.
The fact that she was also photographed with John Howard is only further proof. And Rudd says he can’t even remember meeting her — was she in some kind of fiendish disguise? These are questions that must be answered. Well, they certainly must be asked, according to the rules of the Australian media, which sees a good spy story as only slightly less jeans-creaming than a good leadership story.
Enter the bromancer ...
Yes, back then chairman Rudd's connection to China was a matter of grave suspicion, as bad as that Order of Lenin medal wearing Manning Clack (so Major Mitchell said).
The reptiles have studiously done their best to hid their history, but every so often a gem can be found in the Wayback Machine, including this effort by the bromancer headed China's iron-fisted PR ...
That began ...
Follow the link or see below for the rest.
Suffice to say, the bromancer's war with China by Xmas was a preoccupation even way back when ... and Chairman Rudd was stupid.
And now?
Quick, back on the magic carpet and return to yesterday, where China was still all the bromancer go ...
Rudd did a good job as ambassador, notwithstanding the troubles caused by his previous silly remarks that were personally critical of Donald Trump.
Rudd pushed the AUKUS project forward, securing strong congressional support and specific, pro-AUKUS legislation; he maintained a generally low level of US tariffs on Australia, and bedded down the critical minerals deal.
And although it was weirdly and dangerously delayed, he was impresario to what was ultimately a constructive meeting between Trump and Anthony Albanese.
More generally he worked, on Australia’s behalf, every possible avenue of influence and access across Washington – congress, Republican and Democrat alike, political staffers, the State Department, the Pentagon, business groups, social lobbies, the diplomatic corps, think-tank land. His standing in the last category is evident by his high-profile appointment to head the Asia Society and oversee its China program.
The reptiles quickly slipped in an AV distraction, Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong claims Kevin Rudd has done an “outstanding job” as Australian ambassador to the US. “We are really impressed with the amount that he achieved in the time he was ambassador,” Ms Wong told Sky News Australia. “One of the things that Kevin Rudd was able to do as ambassador was to build relationships with both Republicans and Democrats.”
The bromancer ploughed on with his devotion to the former Chairman:
He wasn’t, like a predecessor, Joe Hockey, able to become Trump’s golfing buddy.
But each ambassador has his or her own strengths and weaknesses. Rudd was overall a net plus.
Most importantly, Rudd is more hard-headed, better informed and strategically more tough-minded on China than anyone else in the Albanese government. And he had the standing to be heard and to be influential. So Rudd’s departure is a serious loss.
Not even its best friend would describe the Albanese government as strategically hard-headed. Instead, strategically it exhibits a marshmallow brain, tactically the adroitness of a stale blancmange, and the killer grip of a kitten with a valium habit. It can ill afford to lose Rudd’s input.
The government is also about to lose Andrew Shearer as Director General of National Intelligence, a role he has held since 2020. Keeping Shearer in place when it first came to government was an early good sign by the Albanese government.
However, although Albanese started well on national security, presumably because he thought it politically necessary, his government has gone steadily backwards ever since, like a spinning top running out of spin.
Not had enough snaps of Chairman Rudd yet?
Please allow the reptiles to help: Rudd at the meeting between Donald Trump and Anthony Albanese in the Cabinet Room of the White House in October 2025. Picture: Getty Images
On and on the bro yammered:
This government’s distaste for national security, and unwillingness to take it altogether seriously, is evident in the woefully static defence budget and the truly bizarre decision in 2024 to remove the heads of ASIO and ASIS from regular attendance at the meetings of the National Security Committee of cabinet.
Though not crucial, as these agency heads are invited to NSC on a case-by-case basis, this petty bureaucratic manoeuvre by the Albanese government was deeply revealing, and one of the most intensely ludicrous actions ever undertaken in this field – especially at a time when the government routinely assures us that we face the worst and most dangerous strategic circumstances since World War II.
It's as if that foolish knave or possible conspirator had never existed, with another worshipful snap to hand Rudd at his residence in Washington. Picture: Twitter
Then it was time for a final bout of bromancer mourning:
His study, On Xi Jinping, was a path-breaking and intellectually ruthless examination of the Chinese leader and his long-term aims. Rudd’s book makes a compelling case that Xi is overwhelmingly motivated by Marxist/Leninist ideology and a drive to maximise Chinese state power.
This repudiates the Pollyannaish feel-good fiction of a wise, pragmatic leader peacefully taking China to greatness, analysis of the kind peddled by Paul Keating and other pro-China figures.
Within think tank and private government circles, Rudd has been a quiet advocate for a greater Western defence effort.
A government as weak as the Albanese government on national security cannot easily afford this loss of personnel. The government’s general slackness in these areas is evident in its failure to have a name ready to announce as Rudd’s replacement.
The government is seldom accused of acting in haste. But to leave the post of ambassador to the US vacant for any period of time would be derelict even by this government’s exacting standards.
Suddenly former Chairman Rudd was an almost irreplaceable jewel?
The pond didn't really understand why the bromancer had changed, beyond the obvious truism that he blows hot and cold on a daily basis and has as many seasons in a day as does the Melbourne weather.
But there was no need for anxiety regarding a replacement.
The reptiles at the lizard Oz had the matter well in hand ... c.f. Ben, always packing it ...
Donald Trump’s golfing and business buddies are refusing to put their hand up to live in Canberra as US ambassador to Australia.
By Ben Packham
Foreign affairs and defence correspondent
Of course the gag was in the alternate headline ...
Sylvester Stallone pick for US ambassador to Australia off the cards for Donald Trump
And in the follow up ...
There was one name that was doing the rounds late last year in relation to the job – Sylvester Stallone. Some US diplomats seemed to enjoy the idea that Rocky (or Rambo) could serve as US ambassador to Australia.
One pointed out that Sly was already a Trump-appointed “special envoy” to Hollywood, “so he’s already basically an ambassador”.
Stranger things have happened, but it appears not to have been a serious prospect.
The rumour emanated from a Republican staffer in Washington, and was fuelled by a congressman who told a Canberra-based US diplomat that he’d seen Stallone in Doral, Florida, at the same time as Trump. There was no more to it than that.
The pond takes it back.
The far right reptiles do have a rich sensa huma, even if it's of a sublimely unaware, deeply unconscious kind.
Luckily Herbert was to hand to help Ben make further suggestions...
Was that it for the day?
No way, José, hold the pond's hose, putative ambassador SloMo style, because then came news of a new jihad, and the pond knew that would bring out the bromancer for a return bout ...
US, UK evacuate key air base as Trump eyes Iran strikes
American and British forces have started moving out of Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar as Donald Trump threatens the Iranian regime and Iran state TV threatens to assassinate the US President.
By Lara Seligman and Benoit Faucon
By definition, the pond has no time for mad Mullahs, and the latest attempts at repression are thuggish, murderous and malevolent.
That said, any intervention by King Donald is likely to prove the point that US attempts at regime change rarely produce good results, especially if you came to power promising to avoid foreign entanglements and regime change.
Will some indiscreet aerial assaults assist in removing the mad Mullahs and replacing them with a better government?
As usual, the bromancer - a fervent supporter of the Iraq folly, a devotee of the Afghanistan debacle - was all in.
Now the pond doesn't have the space to list in detail the many follies of the bromancer.
For that you need to head off to Jeff Sparrow at the ABC, and One pundit's deadly war: from Afghanistan to Vietnam
Sparrow's conclusion?
In June of that year, three Australian soldiers were killed in action. And how did Sheridan respond then?
‘If we want to win in Afghanistan,’ he wrote, ‘we are going to be there for many years to come, in substantial numbers.’
That was the line from the Government, as well as from the Opposition. And so we stayed in Afghanistan, and today we are where we are, with another young man dead.
A columnist for a major newspaper is in a powerful position to shape policy. That power should be accompanied by a corresponding responsibility.
If Sheridan had any decency, he’d resign – or, at very least, apologise for being so wrong for so long. If he doesn’t, why should anyone ever take him seriously again?
Apologise? Admit error?
Sorry Jeff, that was never going to happen, and if the bromancer can't have his war with China by Xmas, then dammit, he can have the middle east in turmoil ...and though it was just a two minute read, so the reptiles said, they made a big splash of it ...
Get past the splash, and there wasn't much by way of actual potatoes and meat ...
The header: US President makes a stand for liberty and human decency in Iran; Move over Woodrow Wilson, John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush. Donald Trump, on his way to Mount Rushmore, would like to join your ranks after all.
The caption for a wisely uncredited, fatuous collage: US President Donald Trump and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are watching the protests in Tehran. Pictures: AFP/supplied
Just listing a bunch of names doesn't elevate King Donald, fast tracking his way to becoming the worst, least regarded US President in American history, but the bromancer's vision was clouded by his devotion to the cult...
Here is the new Trump: slayer of dictators, defender of human rights, avenger of extra-judicial killings by the Iranian government.
In the most extraordinary intervention of his presidency, or indeed his whole life, Trump addressed the protesters dying in their thousands at the hands of the Iranian government.
Trump told “all Iranian patriots” to “keep protesting, take over your institutions if possible, take the names of your abusers”.
He said that he had cancelled all US meetings with Iranian officials until the killing stopped and assured the demonstrators “help is on its way”.
It’s a very good thing that the US President is standing on the side of the Iranian protesters and against the theocratic dictators. This is where the US President should always be – on the side of liberty and elementary human decency. But while the big story here is Iran, this is an astonishing revolution in the Trump worldview in itself. Move over Woodrow Wilson, John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush. Trump, on his way to Mount Rushmore, would like to join your ranks after all.
What a relief that Wilcox is still to hand adding some class to the irredeemable Nine rags.
Speaking of that US repression - more a matter of scale than of kind when compared to Iranian repression in the streets - according to the UK's version of the Daily Snail (caution, Snail link) the shooter is actually married to a woman with Filipino parents:
His 38-year-old wife, whose doctor parents live in the Philippines, married him in August 2012 according to posts on her Instagram page.
Her first picture with Ross on the social media account was posted two months earlier.
In July 2013, when the couple lived around El Paso, Texas, Ross's wife posted a picture posing next to a US Border Patrol helicopter.
She also shared photos of baking recipes from a Spanish-language cookbook.
One neighbor at Ross's 10-house cul-de-sac told the Daily Mail that until recently Ross had been flying pro-Trump flags and a 'Don't Tread On Me' Gadsden Flag, an emblem of the Make America Great Again movement.
Goes without saying, always go full MAGA by marrying a foreigner ...where would the MAGA king himself be without a handy model on the make from eastern Europe by his side?
Sorry for that Tootle, back on the bromancer tracks with a snap, Iranians attend an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran on Friday. Picture: UGC via AP
The bromancer wrapped up in a state of wild-eyed exuberant excitement:
But now he wants to take military action against Iran because it is killing its own citizens protesting against its Islamo-Stalinist government.
Trump was not making a justification in terms of American geo-strategic interests, or the normal oil and trade mercantilism which drives so much of his international action. He was arguing in principle that it’s right for the US to intervene to save the lives of innocent Iranian civilians from their own murderous government.
Of course, as with everything to do with Trump, it’s by no means clear what this means in terms of action, either in the immediate future or as a guide to Trump’s policies over the next three years of his second presidential term.
It’s by no means clear that any military action the US takes from the air could materially alter the circumstances facing the protesters. Iran is not a nation which could be easily decapitated. Nor does it look to be on the brink of regime collapse.
So far, there are no signs of defections among the Iranian security forces. Even recognisable “moderates” among Iran’s political community are backing the government’s brutal crackdown.
This may bear no relation to what they think in private, but it indicates that they don’t see any alternative arising to challenge the existing system.
While it’s good that Trump is explicitly backing the demonstrators, it may be that his comments are irresponsible in one way familiar to American power.
In urging Iranians to protest, and promising them aid, Trump will stand accused of leading them to death for no reason, and letting them down, if he does not in fact take very strong action against the Iranian government.
Meanwhile it seems the regime has already killed thousands and thousands of its own citizens in order to preserve its hollow, corrupt, dehumanising dictatorship. Yet all Iran’s problems and crises continue. The whole world should respond to this.
The pond could feel the dread invoked by the immortal Rowe ...
Remarkably the reptiles decided to stick it to the bro by running Clive...Clive Williams is director of the Terrorism Research Centre in Canberra.
The likeliest short-term outcome, if the clerical system fell abruptly, would be a power struggle within the state itself, potentially resulting in some form of military or security-led government.
by Clive Williams
Clive's conclusion wasn't very bro ... he sounded decidedly downbeat, as this short excerpt shows ...
The instability now gripping Iran has two main causes. The first is the increasingly oppressive rule of the clerical establishment. Decades of moral policing, curtailed freedoms and political exclusion have alienated large sections of society, particularly women and young people. The second is the impact of US-led sanctions, which have damaged the wider economy while leaving those closest to power largely insulated.
Together, repression and economic hardship have produced a volatile mix.
If the Islamic Republic were to collapse, the political alternatives are limited. A liberal democratic transition, while desired by many protesters – and by Western governments – lacks leadership and institutional support inside the country. A return to monarchy has little domestic legitimacy. Fragmentation along ethnic or regional lines would risk prolonged instability. The likeliest short-term outcome, if the clerical system fell abruptly, would be a power struggle within the state itself, potentially resulting in some form of military or security-led government.
None of these likely outcomes is attractive, which is precisely why external actors should tread carefully.
Direct foreign intervention almost certainly would strengthen hardliners and validate longstanding narratives of foreign conspiracy and interference. Yet maintaining pressure without offering a credible pathway forward risks pushing Iran towards collapse rather than reform.
The most practical option for the West lies in cautious re-engagement: easing sanctions in exchange for verifiable political changes, encouraging internal reform rather than regime implosion, and supporting Iranian civil society without attempting to anoint leaders from abroad.
Ultimately, Iran’s future will be decided by Iranians themselves, not by foreign governments or exiled elites.
Iran is not a failed society. It is a frustrated one. The question now is whether the outside world will provide space for a workable transition – or whether short-term reactions will once again foreclose long-term outcomes, with unpredictable and potentially damaging consequences for Western interests.
The pond would have liked to run the full Clive piece, but he's there in the intermittent archive, and the pond needed the room for another pond contractual obligation ... Dame Groan.
Much like the bromancer, the pond will endeavour to bring as many Groanings as it can to correspondents devoted to the Dame Groan cult, even if the old biddy is now as interesting as a cantankerous cat choking on fur balls...
The header: Productivity Commission’s reform plan for Australia is impractical and costly, The Productivity Commission delivered 47 reform recommendations to boost Australia’s dismal productivity, but its proposals could accelerate deindustrialisation and economic decline.
The caption for the severe snap: Chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
To be honest, the pond almost wilted like a precious Victorian flower at the thought of ploughing through five minutes of Groaning, but the reptiles helped out by allowing just that one visual distraction.
There shall be no visual distractions, there shall just be essence of unadulterated groaning:
This is a point that even Jim Chalmers accepts. The federal Treasurer went to the trouble of convening a roundtable last year on the topic, although there was some last-minute haggling about what to call it.
In the end it went by the name Economic Reform Roundtable on the insistence of the Prime Minister. Any specific reference to productivity could have invited accountability in terms boosting measured productivity, something that needed to be avoided.
Chalmers also thought he had the bases covered by commissioning five separate inquiries by the Productivity Commission on the theme of boosting Australia’s productivity. He had done this before the election was called last year. The topics covered were:
Uh oh, time for a dot point listicle, but on the upside, no PowerPoint presentation:
- Creating a more dynamic and resilient economy.
- Building a skilled and adaptable workforce.
- Harnessing data and digital technologies.
- Delivering quality care more efficiently.
- Investing in cheaper, cleaner energy and the net-zero transformation.
Listicle done, then it was on with the undiluted groaning, and let's be clear, at no point did the groaning ever resort to clichés of the 'let's be clear' kind because it was all as clear as mud.
Jimbo was ruining the country, the country was already rooned, but it was gunna be rooned even more ...
Now take that Groaning down in a single gulp, always the best strategy with bitter-tasting medicine:
Australia’s productivity record has been dismal, particularly recently. The 20-year annual average labour productivity growth to 2023-24 was only 0.8 per cent, compared with 1.8 per cent in the 20 years ending 2003-04.
Across the past decade, productivity in Australia has been essentially flat, whereas in the US productivity has surged.
The gap between productivity in the two countries is close to an all-time high. Australia’s real per capita household disposable income – which is closely correlated with productivity growth – grew by only 3.5 per cent in the decade ending in the first quarter of last year. By comparison, growth in Canada was close to 9 per cent, in Britain by 8 per cent and in the US by 21 per cent.
Now all sorts of excuses can be offered. Semantic points can be made about differences in measurement. But the bottom line is clear: Australia’s productivity performance has been woeful and it has been getting worse.
It is one reason the economy is now particularly prone to inflationary shocks because the supply responses to upticks in demand are so sluggish. In the context of excessive growth in federal and state government spending, this vulnerability is even more acute.
Two key questions arise. What has Chalmers done so far to boost productivity growth? What should be made of the 47 reform recommendations of the Productivity Commission’s suite of inquiry reports?
Answering the first question doesn’t take too much space because the short answer is: very little. Getting rid of the few remaining nuisance tariffs is working on the wrong side of the decimal place. Pausing the next version of the National Construction Code – this had been Coalition policy and was criticised by Labor – only removes a further impediment to productivity growth. Imposing a road-user charge has gone nowhere.
And the reform to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is likely to have only a minimal impact by speeding up project approval times, but not for the critical gas industry.
So, what should we make of the Productivity Commission’s contribution to the debate?
Given its name, we should expect flawless, definitive analysis and impeccable recommendations. Sadly, this turns out to be far from the case. The recommendations range from the hopelessly impractical to the bleeding obvious; from the erroneous to the platitudinous.
Don’t you just love statements such as “rightsize the Consumer Data Right”? Hard to argue with that if anyone knows what it means.
Or what about: “replace excessive occupational entry regulations with less burdensome alternatives”? Again, hard to argue with that but, let’s face it, that’s unlikely to happen. But why would anyone bother to develop a “nationally consistent climate resilience rating system for housing”? The mind boggles.
What is truly missing from these indigestible reports is a statement of what really drives productivity growth and, hint, it’s not more government programs, spending or regulation. It’s about risk-taking and innovation, about resources being allocated to the best ends, it’s about accepting failure and having capital invest in the most prospective lines.
It’s about competition and governments getting out of the way. Rapidly expanding the government-funded “care economy” is a highway to slow productivity growth.
Take the commission’s tortuous recommendations in relation to corporate tax. Evidently, we would be better served with some compliance-heavy arrangement of having two means of estimating the taxes payable by companies, at least larger ones. Notwithstanding the hostile reaction this proposal received at the draft stage from people deeply experienced in business, the commission pushed on.
Let’s be clear, this is truly bizarre. The idea is that large companies will continue to pay taxes according to current arrangements but also will be hit with a cashflow tax because this is presumed to lead to more investment across time. Mind you, even according to the highly debatable modelling, the one-off impact on GDP is trivial and takes a long time to eventuate. Why would you bother?
And bear in mind here that there is an assumption that all large businesses are operating in uncompetitive markets and thus earning above normal profits that can be harmlessly taxed.
Again, this is bizarre. Our mining companies, for instance, are largely price-takers, with commodity prices set on international markets. And many other large companies operate in markets competing for price-sensitive consumers.
One of the worst reports of the suite of five is the one that deals with the net-zero transformation. The current leadership of the commission has always taken the strange view that net zero is some sort of economic prize.
The reality is that economic prizes don’t require massive government intervention, subsidisation and taxation. Net zero is an objective that carries a high economic cost. Short of ditching the objective, the real objective should be minimising the cost of the transition.
The commission’s proposals would essentially accelerate the rate of deindustrialisation by increasing the coverage of the safeguard mechanism as well as hasten the exit of coal-fired power stations from the electricity grid. This latter outcome is the result of applying the safeguard mechanism on a plant-by-plant basis rather than the current sectoral basis.
At the same time, the report naively assumes that the build out of renewable energy can be accelerated, notwithstanding shortages of materials and labour and escalating costs.
Those in the know realise that offshore wind is going nowhere and onshore wind is also struggling. There also has been significant underinvestment in securing the reliability of the grid.
Readers of this column are therefore advised to save their precious time by ignoring the commission’s magnum opus. I (sic, so and thus, the lonely "I" hinted at lost dreams)
It’s big on motherhood statements, national approaches to everything and totally impractical and costly interventions.
If this is the best the commission can do, the value of having this expensive agency continue should be questioned.
