How good is the DOJ and the FBI? How good is American justice? How good are "Western values"? How much does Vlad the Sociopath still have to learn?
The pond confesses that it needed to do a little "making justice great again" stuff before tackling Polonius's prattle for its Sunday meditation...
The header: By Gerard Henderson Croatian Six still haunted by failures of judicial system
The promise of a bot voice: Listen to this article 6 min
The caption for a borrowed snap: Vico Virkez on a farm in Yugoslavia in 1991. Picture: ABC / Four Corners
The desperate desire to stay relevant behind a paywall: Make us preferred on Google
This was an outlier for Polonius, but at least it veered away from the usual malarkey of recent weeks, and so the pond was willing to go with the flow ...
And then there were three. The reference is to the Croatian Six who were convicted in 1981 of engaging in a conspiracy two years earlier to bomb targets in Sydney. The motive for such criminality was not adequately explained by the prosecution. This was one of the longest criminal trials in Australian history. It ran for 10 months and the jury was out for an extraordinary 68 hours. However, on February 9, 1981, Maksimilijan Bebic, Vjekoslav Brajkovic, Ilija Kokotovic, Joseph Kokotovic, Mile Nekic and Anton Zvirotic were found guilty and sentenced to a maximum 15-year term of imprisonment. They were released after less than 10 years. The outcome of these convictions has been contested for close to half a century – and the case is not closed. There have been a number of appeals and inquiries, most recently in June, when Acting Justice Robert Allan Hulme handed down his report on the Inquiry into the Convictions of the Croatian Six. The Hulme inquiry was set up following a finding in August 2022 by Justice Robertson Wright that there were doubts about their guilt. In March 2023, Chief Justice Andrew Bell chose Hulme to undertake his inquiry. The outcome of the Hulme inquiry was well explained by journalist Hamish McDonald (not to be confused with Hamish Macdonald of the ABC) in his address to the Sydney Institute last Wednesday, titled “The Croatian Six and Terrorism: Where are we at?”. McDonald is the author of Reasonable Doubt: Guns, Police and the Croatian Six (Doosra Media, 2019). Reasonable Doubt is a devastating account of the failures of the Australian judicial system – all the way from the NSW Supreme Court to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal and on to the High Court of Australia. And now the matter is going back to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. After his lengthy inquiry, Hulme found that “no reasonable doubt arises as to the guilt” of Bebic, Brajkovic and Zvirotic. However, Hulme found that “there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt” of the Kokotovics and Nekic (who is deceased). A surprising decision, to be sure. Since, with respect to one finding, he refers to the Croatian Six as being “implicated … in the conspiracy”. Hulme has referred his findings with respect to the three to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, which is expected to consider whether these convictions should be quashed. Not those of the other three who, as McDonald points out, “continue to protest their innocence”. He added that Croatian Australians are “finding it hard to accept half-exoneration”. Half a century ago, Croatia was part of Yugoslavia. It was a communist totalitarian regime ruled by dictator Josip Broz Tito in Serbia. Yugoslavia broke up in 1990 and became independent of the other parts of the former federation – the largest of which was Serbia, followed by Croatia.
The pond knows little about the matter, and cares less, and struggled to find another title published by Doosra Media, but whatever, let's have another snap from the cardigan wearers, The ‘Croatian Six’: Max Bebic, Vic Brajkovic, Tony Zvirotic, Joe Kokotovic, Ilija Kokotovic and Mile Nekic. Picture: ABC
A more interesting question, perhaps, than the matter of contested guilt is why Polonius decided to hare off down this rabbit hole?
Was there nothing in American justice to command attention? Must we attempt an antipodean counterbalance? Must it turn out to be another contribution to the Australian Daily Tyke News?
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the left-wing faction of the Labor Party – led by Jim Cairns and Lionel Murphy – was hostile to the Croatian Australians who were not only anti-communist but, in the main, Catholics. This is documented in a chapter by Denis Strangman in Les Shaw’s 1974 edited collection, The Shape of the Labor Regime. Murphy and Cairns in the late 1960s and early 1970s alleged that, under the Coalition government, ASIO was covering up terrorism by Croatian Australians against Serbian individuals and properties in Australia. This was not true. Sure, some Croatian Australians wanted to go to war. But against the communist regime in Serbia, not democratic Australia. However, it is acknowledged that Tito’s secret police force – the UDBA – was running false-flag operations by attacking Yugoslav properties in Australia – and elsewhere – and framing Croatian Australians. The overwhelming evidence shows that the Croatian Six were the victims of a UDBA false-flag operation. The conspiracy commenced when Detective Sergeant Roger Rogerson raided a property in Sydney and arrested some of the Croatian Six. Rogerson died recently in prison having been convicted of murder.
Cue another snap ... One of the ‘Croatian Six’, Vjekoslav Brajkovic, gave evidence at a judicial inquiry into his convictions, 44 years after he was charged.
For all of Polonius's powers of persuasion - some might think them limited - in the end he didn't seem to come up with much ...
At the time, the NSW police contained individuals who bashed those they arrested, planted “evidence”, invented confessions and so on. This was to be the fate of the Croatian Six. It was a part of the criminal world, which some prosecutors and judges never fully understood. Moreover, in the book Reasonable Doubt, McDonald makes the case that the trial judge, Alan Victor Maxwell, was hostile to the accused. And that when the six appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal the chief judge was Gordon Samuels, one of Maxwell’s closest friends. The principal evidence against the Croatian Six was supplied by Vico Virkez. Chris Masters, then an ABC Four Corners reporter, interviewed Virkez overseas in 1991. Virkez told Masters that he was not a Croat or a Christian, and that he had committed perjury at the trial of the Croatian Six. He was a Tito agent. It seems extraordinary that after what Virkez told Masters, not everyone has conceded that there was at the very least reasonable doubt as to the safety of the convictions. By the way, Masters endorsed Reasonable Doubt. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal may quash the convictions of Nekic and the Kokotovics. It is unclear what, if anything, may be done with respect to the others. And then there is the High Court. In March 1986, the High Court decided on an application for special leave to appeal in Mile Nekic and others v The Queen. Chief justice Gibbs and justices Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson considered the case. At 12.07pm the court took an adjournment. At 12.16pm it returned and Gibbs said that “a majority of the court has reached the conclusion that if special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would certainly fail”. But would this have been the case? After all, the minority did not hold this view. That is, either one or two of Australia’s leading jurists at the time. It is possible a further application could be made to the High Court. ASIO does not regard the Croatian Six as terrorists and it is better informed on such matters than the legal profession. It’s time for – and then there were none. Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.
As usual when the pond knows nothing, and can't hope to discover anything, the pond passed on making a comment, but did want to update the Polonial bio, which strangely lists him as a News24 man. Apparently turning up once a week in the lizard Oz doesn't count. He's been consigned to the Siberia of pay cable TV ...
Gerard Henderson News24 Columnist Gerard Henderson is an Australian columnist, political commentator and the Executive Director of The Sydney Institute. His column Media Watch Dog is republished by News24.com.au each Saturday morning. He started the blog in April 1988, before the ABC TV’s program of the same name commenced.
While on the theme of innocence and guilt ...
And so to a couple of cheats.
Thanks to the revival of the intermittent archive, all the pond has to do is provide a link and a teaser trailer, and then correspondents can decide if they want to head off to the cornfield, and miss the rest (and they won't be missing much) ...
This just Dame Slap doing internecine legal warfare.
In its time the pond has seen some of that kind of fighting - lawyer on lawyer action - up close, and its ugly stuff when they turn their claws on each other.
Still the pond is updating its profiles, and should note Dame Slap's qualifications as a claw master...
Janet Albrechtsen Columnist Janet Albrechtsen is an opinion columnist with The Australian. She has worked as a solicitor in commercial law, and attained a Doctorate of Juridical Studies from the University of Sydney. She has written for numerous other publications including the Australian Financial Review, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Sunday Age, and The Wall Street Journal.
In a similar vein, the pond skipped much of Snappy Tom's offering.
About the only thing that appealed was the remarkable collage by Emilia, who proudly refused to blame AI for her work ... it's the sort of image that would be at home in Pravda in its heyday, or Der Stürmer, with a shifty Albo looking startled and a shifty Jimbo looking glum and downcast ...
Well played Emilia, you lifted Snappy Tom's hatchet job out of the reptile ruck.
This might tempt correspondents to abandon ship and head off to the intermittent archive for the full bashing with a blunt fiscal instrument (where's the talk of SI?)...
Tom Dusevic Columnist Tom Dusevic writes commentary and analysis on economic policy, social issues and new ideas to deal with the nation’s most pressing challenges. Formerly policy editor, he has been The Australian’s national chief reporter, chief leader writer, editorial page editor, opinion editor, economics writer and first social affairs correspondent. Dusevic won a Walkley Award for commentary and the Citi Journalism Award for Excellence. He is the author of the memoir Whole Wild World and holds degrees in Arts and Economics from the University of Sydney.
As we're speaking of pollies struggling to cope with shocks ...
And so to the Ughmann.
The story here is a simple one, which is why the pond reverted to screen caps.
The unreformed seminarian is a relentless hater of renewables, a devotee of dinkum pure, innocent, clean, virginal Oz coal, and a climate science denialist, and arguing with him is a bit like taking on some fanatical member of Opus Dei or the Jesuit fraternity.
Households in the contiguous United States will pay thousands of dollars more for energy through 2040 because of federal policy changes since President Donald Trump returned to office such as canceling new clean energy projects, according to modeling released Friday by a nonpartisan think tank. The Energy Innovation analysis found that households will pay an average of $6,500 more for energy, cumulatively through 2040. In five states, households will pay roughly $9,000 more: Oregon, Mississippi, South Dakota, Virginia and Wyoming. The California-based think tank said there will be more demand for natural gas for electricity because the administration is canceling new wind, solar and hydrogen projects and there will be more gasoline demand for transportation because Trump and Congress are revoking policies that incentivized efficient and lower-emissions vehicles. Higher demand increases prices. Energy prices are elevated in many countries. The International Energy Agency said after Russia invaded Ukraine, record prices were observed between 2022 and 2024 in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan and Korea. In many countries, the rise has outpaced income growth and inflation since 2019, including the European Union and the United States. In some areas of the U.S., demand from data centers is being blamed. The Iran war has sent oil and gasoline prices sharply higher, too. The Energy Information Administration expects residential U.S. customers to pay about 18.6 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2027, compared to 17.3 cents in 2025 and 18.2 cents in 2026. The independent research firm Rhodium Group has also examined the issue, saying in April the U.S. has entered a new period of rising electricity prices. It cited increasing price volatility in natural gas, which is increasingly used to generate power; needed grid improvements; inflation; storm recovery and wildfire mitigation; and shifting policies. Absent significant policy action, electricity prices likely will continue their significant rise over the next five years, the firm said.
Delicious, especially that line about costs rising because the administration is canceling new wind, solar and hydrogen projects.
Now please allow the Ughmann to go full Donald:
The pond will concede a certain rat cunning, as in the Ughmann flung in AFL for the aerial pingpong mob, while also appealing to the nerds with his treatment of that falling apple ... Newton’s apple: The real story:
It is the manuscript for what would become a biography of Newton entitled Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton’s Lifewritten by William Stukeley, an archaeologist and one of Newton’s first biographers, and published in 1752. Newton told the apple story to Stukeley, who relayed it as such: “After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden and drank thea, under the shade of some apple trees…he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind. It was occasion’d by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood. Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself…”
More importantly did everyone put their money on the very short odds that there'd be a snap of fiendish windmills in the story, for the tilting at by Chris "Don Quixote" Ughmann?
If you bet the right way, get ready for a big win ...
Would the mango Mussolini be reprimanded for the way his war of choice has plunged the world and the Unites States into pain and misery?
Not likely ...
Extra points and shekels for anyone betting on dinkum, sweet, innocent virginal coal making an appearance in the snaps - how the reptiles love a coal-fired power station - though the pond suggests it's unlikely that anyone could have tipped the next visual outsider, a snap of a crowd wandering about to no point, though it does evoke the substance of the Ughmann's style...
The pond has no idea why the "journalists" are labelled "journalist". It hardly adds to the allure, the appeal, or perhaps explain who was conducting the inquisition, or is that a jihad?
The pond didn't want to do a spoiler on that exquisite Sean image, especially as the brave lad didn't try to foist it onto AI (or even SI), but instead nobly took the credit himself.
Way to go Sean, way to elevate the tone of the lizard Oz, way to go with giving the Ughmann all the gravitas he deserves ...
As for the "journalist", the next gobbet gave a tantalising clue, but was it the Ughmann or the dog botherer or some other Chris? Who can say?
The pond covered Michele yesterday thanks to the immortal Rowe ...
The Ughmann is more than a match when it comes to beating a climate science-denying drum... because all that blather ultimately is in aid of returning the country to coal, with perhaps a little nuking thrown in for good measure ...
Credit where credit is due ...
Chris Uhlmann Columnist Chris Uhlmann is a Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster, having begun his media career at The Canberra Times and as a radio producer for the ABC in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He was most recently the ABC's political editor on its flagship 7.30 program.
Strange, no mention of his time as an unreformed seminarian, nor any mention of his impeccable credentials in climate science.
As for the tolling bell, it's tolling loud enough, and not too far in the distance.
The pond turned to the lizard Oz and saw the breakout story at the top of the digital edition early on the weekend ... and knew exactly what it portended, what it signified ... and blinked, caved, backed down, said uncle, threw in the towel.
Not that, not early in the day. ...
Was there no alternative? And then as if by magic, the pond saw the Angelic one, always a becalming presence, and a reminder that before the lizard Oz became the Australian Daily Zionist News, it was once the Australian Tyke Daily News:
The tempting header: By Angela Shanahan ‘Philosopher king’ Leo a moral leader in a troubled world
The promise of a bot voice: Listen to this article 6 min
The caption for the snap of the redeemer: Pope Leo XIV attends an event at the Lourdes Grotto in the Vatican Gardens. Picture: AP Photo
The plea for relevance in an algorithmic world and never mind the paywall: Make us preferred on Google
The Angelic one turned her tyke vision to AI, and found a redeemer, and the pond was down wit it, especially as there was no blather about this being SI:
A couple of months ago I read an article in The Spectator UK that was a despairing reflection on the terrible vision of unchecked AI, and the possibility of “accidental” Armageddon. Like most of us, the author didn’t have a clue about AI but he knew enough to say that what we need is moral leadership, some new “philosopher king” to help us. Well, we have one. His name is Leo XIV. Pope Leo’s seizing leadership in a world crying out for it is astonishing. In just over a year he has proved his moral leadership in two ways. Firstly, with the encyclical on AI, and secondly in his and the Vatican’s attempts to influence a peace between Ukraine and Russia.
The Angelic one broke ranks with her Faux Noise kissing cousins:
Even President Donald Trump in his hubristic bubble can see that we cannot shrug off the possibilities of rogue AI as just the latest preoccupation of doomsayers formerly obsessed with global warming and pandemics. However, what the leader of the free world might dimly realise, and his counterpart in China probably doesn’t, is that development of AI presents us with a whole new moral paradigm. The informed moral consciousness makes us human so the realisation of the power of a new amoral force requires a moral response. This is difficult to formulate coherently for technocrats used to purely technical and commercial responses, but Leo has done this.
The caption for the fiends tormenting the Angelic one: China President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump must realise that development of AI presents us with a whole new moral paradigm. Picture: Getty Images via AFP
The Angelic one continued to pump up the papacy as an alternative to the mad king, a kind of heresy beginning to take hold in even the most rabid MAGA minds... (Dame Slap excluded?)
In his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, the Pope has set out the first and only real moral template for dealing with AI, and it is no exaggeration to say the encyclical has been hugely influential. It has been read by most of the Silicon Valley elite and, fortuitously, was issued at a time when rogue AI began to become an unforeseen problem, prompting the tech lords to declare their willingness to install more checks. Leo is in some ways the first modern pope. He is not only the first US-born pope, but also the first born in the generation after World War Two. This means that he, like most of us, has been for many years exposed to and fascinated by technology, hence his interest in AI, which preceded his election as Pope. It also meant he knew where to go for scientific advice. However, there is a second aspect to his post-war, post-communist generational viewpoint. It allows him a different understanding of the geopolitical world from his predecessors. The Vatican’s recent diplomatic mission to Russia is probably indicative of this shift. Although an independent state, the Vatican has a dual diplomatic role. Firstly, it can bring moral pressure for humanitarian reasons. Secondly, it is a very valuable neutral conduit for diplomacy. It has representatives from virtually every state on Earth. During the papacy of John Paul II, it is no secret the pope himself was a valuable ally and the Vatican acted as a conduit for intelligence that precipitated the collapse of communism in Poland and Eastern Europe.
The reptiles interrupted with an AV distraction which offered cheerful, if somewhat dated, news:
Next video thumbnail
Pope Leo draws more than 800,000 people for mass in Paris
More than 800,000 have gathered in central Paris to take part in mass led by Pope Leo XIV during a four-day trip for the Head of the Catholic Church.
The Angelic one began to brood about Ukraine:
So why has Leo sent his top representative, Paul Gallagher, to Moscow in the middle of a shooting war? I have met Gallagher, in Rome and in Canberra when he was Papal Nuncio. Like all brilliant diplomats he is acutely sensitive to nuance in conversation and very wary of journalists. He is English, has an easygoing manner and his accent still has traces of the Liverpool of his birth. Gallagher publicly offered Russian officials dialogue and humanitarian assistance, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine, but controversially, as Russia’s Foreign Ministry’s press release states: “Sergey Lavrov talked about the destructive nature of Western policies and went on to emphasise the principled importance of addressing the root causes of the crisis.” But there was more to this visit. While Gallagher’s mission preserved the Holy See’s traditional insistence on dialogue with both sides, CIA director John Ratcliffe was also in Moscow. According to the National Catholic Reporter, this confluence raised questions about “whether the first US pope’s peace diplomacy might intersect with Washington’s strategic pressure on Moscow to influence an end to the war in Ukraine”. Other reports said Ratcliffe privately delivered a warning to the Kremlin to avoid an escalation of the conflict, although accounts differed over the principal purpose of his visit.
Who knows, all we know is that the Angelic one has high connections ...Archbishop Paul Gallagher was sent to Moscow in the middle of a shooting war. Picture: AFP
For some reason, in one version of the yarn, the reptiles decided to interrupt with an AV distraction, which involved almost quaintly dated news ...
Next video thumbnail Boris Johnson’s train targeted by Russian drone near NATO border News24 host James Macpherson reports former UK prime minister Boris Johnson was travelling just two kilometres from the Polish-Ukrainian border when the train behind him was targeted by a Russian drone. “Boris Johnson was just two kilometres from the Polish-Ukrainian border when the train behind him was targeted by a Russian drone,” Mr Macpherson said. “Mr Johnson was returning from a security conference in Kyiv where Western officials met with Volodymyr Zelensky's government to discuss possible peace negotiations with Russia. “Thankfully, Ukrainian authorities confirmed there were no casualties among the 200 or so passengers on the train. “These trains were only two kilometres from the Polish border. That's awfully close to NATO territory.”
Dammit, they did it just to mess with the pond, and as the pond was scribbling, they re-edited and re-ordered the Angelic one (and dropped her inside the fold, but attention must be paid!)
The Angelic one ignored the ancient news - Vlad the sociopath has done a lot more since that time - and continued the Papal pumping - though she did concede that the pontiff's rep might have put a proverbial foot in it in relation to the conflict.
What a relief to discover it was all just an outtake from a Hollywood movie, or perhaps a true crime show:
Victor Gaetan, author of God’s Diplomats: Pope Francis, Vatican Diplomacy, and America’s Armageddon, said it looked like a “good cop, bad cop” operation. Whether the visits were co-ordinated or not, their convergence presented Russia with two complementary messages from the West. From Gallagher and, tangentially, the Pope: “The position of the Holy See remains clear: the conflict cannot be resolved by military means,” Gallagher said in a press conference with Lavrov after their meeting. Then, at the same time, as reported by The Wall Street Journal and Politico, Ratcliffe warned against attacking NATO members – in particular, the Baltic states. In the context of Vatican geo political policies and on the more pertinent moral and doctrinal influence of Pope Leo, the Vatican’s attempts to influence this conflict have been both praised and condemned; praised in general, but condemned by influential conservative lay theologian and Pope John Paul biographer George Weigel, for whom Russia is always the implacable enemy of Western Liberal values. On the other hand, many of us Catholics – and non-Catholics – feel that reality dictates dealing with whomever you need deal with to end a bloody war that has killed approximately two million people.
Exactly. Ever since the Inquisition Catholics have been realists, and so to recognise another reality:
Another aspect to Leo’s claim to moral leadership is his level of popular admiration. First, his unfazed demeanour with Trump’s bizarre shenanigans was almost comical. Then the President’s lame one-upmanship, dismissing the dangers of AI – despite the tech titans being against him and the unfortunate US ambassador to the Vatican attempting a form of “baseball diplomacy”. But it is Leo who has had the last laugh, by paraphrasing the frustrated President and stating what we all know. AI Armageddon is “definitely not ‘fake news’ ”.
A little detail on who you've been reading:
Angela Shanahan Columnist Angela Shanahan is a Canberra-based freelance journalist and mother of nine children. She has written regularly for The Australian for over 20 years, The Spectator (British and Australian editions) for over 10 years, and formerly for the Sunday Telegraph, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times. For 15 years she was a teacher in the NSW state high school system and at the University of NSW. Her areas of interest are family policy, social affairs and religion. She was an original convener of the Thomas More Forum on faith and public life in Canberra. In 2020 she published her first book, Paul Ramsay: A Man for Others, a biography of the late hospital magnate and benefactor, who instigated the Paul Ramsay Foundation and the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation.
A little detail on the way the reptiles operate so they can maintain their tax-free lifestyle:
A NOTE ABOUT RELEVANT CONTENT: We collect information about the content (including ads) you use across this site and use it to make both advertising and content more relevant to you on our network and other sites. Find out more about our policy and your choices, including how to opt-out of targeted advertising based on your browsing behaviour on our network.Sometimes our articles will try to help you find the right product at the right price. We may receive payment from third parties for publishing this content or when you make a purchase through the links on our sites.
Please allow the pond a little celebration:
The pond was desperate to delay the inevitable, and turned to the bromancer with a sigh of relief.
The header: Australia is critically exposed to rapidly advancing AI weapons Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor
Wth no sense of irony, the promise of a bot read: Listen to this article 12 min
With no sense of irony, the caption for an illustration which had no human credit, and looked for all the world like an AI offering: AI is coming on the winds of hurricanes. We’ll need our friends close to cope with it.
The plea for help with the bots: Make us preferred on Google
What's this relentless talk of AI? Still no reptile following the mad king with talk of SI?
Never mind, the bromancer was in his element, as Reichsmarschall des GroßAustralisch Reiches:
Security threats have gone on steroids. The technology of attack has been democratised. Every security danger Australia faces is radically increased. The Albanese government and Defence Minister Richard Marles, and vastly more credible figures, have many times told us this is the most dangerous strategic environment since World War II. It’s just got much worse. The ability for us, and our friends, to be hit – high, low and in the middle – to be hit militarily, socially, biologically, economically has just been turbocharged. And what are we doing about it? Almost nothing, so close to nothing that our efforts, in any proper calculation, would be a rounding error.
The reptiles immediately interrupted with an AV distraction:
Next video thumbnail Would AI lie to you? Research finds China’s AI agents can deceive users Chinese-powered AI agents have learnt to deceive, circumvent restrictions and conceal failure, showing the kind of traits in autonomous artificial intelligence that have raised global alarm about US models, research documents and experts say. Reuters Chief China Technology Correspondent Eduardo Baptista explains.
The bromancer was in a panic:
Artificial intelligence, the new ways of war revealed in Ukraine and Iran, China’s massive military build-up, Chinese AI capabilities, the proliferation of AI through every destructive potential, means we face a diabolical environment. Of course, we may survive unscathed. You can live happily in a glass house for a long time if nobody throws a stone. But we are dancing a convoluted ballet on the narrowing precipice of a sheer cliff. Simeon Gilding, former deputy director-general of the Australian Signals Directorate, tells me: “The best way to think of AI is that it supercharges traditional geostrategic threats.” It also transforms potential cyber attacks. Don’t think of cyber attacks as something fuzzy, vague and chiefly the concern of boffins. They could mean your city’s power goes out, the hospital back-up generator stops working, the water system breaks down. But as the intrusion efforts by AI bots, or “agents”, acting beyond their human masters’ control suggests, the threat of AI cyber attack, in infrastructure or on anything, is vast.
But what did this mean for the saviour of Faux Noise, News Corporation and the world? US President Donald Trump has resisted calls for greater regulation of AI. Picture: AP
Or even calls for greater regulation of SI? Have the lizards of Oz no loyalty to their Faux Noise king?
Surely everything was in good shape?
Much of the Australian debate over the past few weeks, however, has been misdirected. Our friends’ bots going rogue, disturbing as that can be, is not the main danger. It’s what our enemies will get their AI to do intentionally that is infinitely more disturbing. Gilding: “AI enables the scaling of cyber attacks. On the military side, it accelerates operational planning and enables the rapid fusing of intelligence to develop targeting packs at scale.” Our necessary response? Gilding: “Much bigger investments are needed for cyber security in the AI age … Cyber attackers are increasingly able to operate at machine speed and scale using AI.” But, of course, the military impact of AI goes vastly beyond cyber attacks. Paul Scharre, author of Four Battlegrounds: Power in the Age of AI, writes in Foreign Affairs that drones and AI are “transforming warfare”. Not the least of their effects is to transform the economics of warfare. Small, inexpensive drones can increasingly be fitted with autonomous AI. They no longer need to maintain any link with their launchers. They can’t be disabled electronically (though of course they can be shot out of the air). They can carry internal guidance systems and correlate, via their own cameras, the topography they observe with pre-loaded satellite maps. You can’t jam their communications. They can travel long distances. They can attack in swarms. They can be powered by jets. Swarms of them can be combined with missile attacks to overcome even capable hi-tech defences. They can use facial recognition to go after specific individuals but can also co-ordinate with each other their targeting and tactics. A swarm of drones worth a few hundred thousand dollars can destroy a capital ship worth billions of dollars.
Hang on, hang on, surely a few subs and AUKUS will save us?
Before the pond got an answer, the reptiles slipped in another AV distraction, and the AI news was bad:
Next video thumbnail Ukraine airdrops killer robots to take out 3,000 Russian troops in huge tech leap Ukraine has revealed a battlefield first after using bomber drones to air-drop explosive ground robots deep behind Russian lines in Donetsk. The tactic formed part of Operation Vivaldi, a months-long counteroffensive that Kyiv says reclaimed 48 square miles of territory. Ukraine’s Third Army Corps says Russian forces suffered at least 3,000 casualties during the operation, though the figure is unverified. Heavy bomber drones carried the four-wheeled kamikaze robots more than 10 kilometres behind enemy lines before releasing them to strike targets. Ukraine claims the unit completed more than 15,700 missions as robots and drones increasingly took on jobs once reserved for frontline troops.
The bromancer gloomily realised that perhaps all his strategic devotion to super expensive kit might have been in vain ...
Small drones can be delivered to target areas by large drones. In Operation Vivaldi, Ukrainians recently drove unmanned old armoured vehicles bearing huge bombs at Russian positions with great effect. A concerted drone campaign, in which drones did the major action while human beings filled the gaps, captured 175sq km from the Russians. The traditional US advantage lay in hi-tech super expensive platforms with a technological edge. Now that advantage counts for much less. The US used AI to choose Iranian targets in the first weeks of the war. But it couldn’t entirely defeat Iran. And Iran itself fired thousands of missiles and drones at US targets, inflicting a lot of damage. As the war went on, the US, despite its immense superiority in fire power, found it harder and harder to stop Iranian missiles and drones. Now it’s unclear whether the US navy’s fifth fleet can continue to headquarter itself in Bahrain. Scharre writes: “The US no longer has a discernible advantage in emerging technologies and will not be able to gain one.”
And what of the bromancer's war with China, promised for last Xmas, but certain for an Xmas to come? More bad news ...
The US is ahead of China in AI, he writes, but only by a few months. Chinese AI constantly learns from American AI in a process known as “adversarial distillation”. The Australian Defence Force is even more dysfunctionally built around a tiny number of expensive, hi-tech platforms. We are superbly ill-equipped to deal with the new realities of war. Michael Shoebridge, director of Strategic Analysis Australia, puts our drone sophistication at a level from before the Ukraine war: “We are four years behind the latest technology.” He lampoons the federal government’s commitment of $7bn on drones over 10 years. It’s back ended and it’s not enough. The US, on the other hand, recognises the problem. It has set up an Autonomous Warfare Command within the military.
We’ll have to wait and see what comes of Project Meridian and the rest of Hegseth’s bizarre, TED Talk–style speech. What makes Luckey, Musk, and Gingrich so uniquely good for the job? Does he really think other countries don’t have industry leaders and politicians as smart as them? That the collective minds of a dotcom-era billionaire, a self-described “radical Zionist” V.R. entrepreneur, and an old partisan really give the U.S some kind of military edge?
You're doomed bromancer, doomed ... but talk about the chance for some splendid comedy, what with one of the trio being a beardo and also a weirdo, though Uncle Leon is also a weirdo.
Have a visual break: Cyber attacks could mean your city’s power goes out, the hospital back-up generator stops working, or the water system breaks down.
Oh that uncredited, likely AI image didn't help at all, as the bromancer continued in full "the bots are coming" mode:
So-called compute power is becoming as important in modern warfare as the size of the manufacturing base was in industrial age warfare, according to Scharre. Yet no advantage in AI will be decisive for long because the technology keeps moving. The military situation is actually much more disturbing even than that. So-called open-weight AI models are available to anyone willing to pay for them. They’re well behind frontier US models in capability but they’re pretty powerful. AI companies pledge to put “guardrails” on them. But there’s a growing industry and market to create “abliterated” AI models – put simply, to work out how to take the guard rails off. That means that actors quite a long way down the technology chain, namely rogue states, and all the traditional non-state actors, especially terrorists and organised crime syndicates, will be able to acquire previously undreamed of destructive power. Shoebridge: “Imagine if Osama bin Laden had a strong AI model and a friendly Pakistani bioscientist and lab. You could expect a nasty biological weapon out of that.”
The pond doesn't have to imagine bin Laden. Pete Kegsbreath and mad King Donald will do, especially if the November elections turn into a blow out, as the reptiles flung in a visual distraction: An Australian soldier launches a drone during the Austral Shield exercise near Weipa on the Cape York Peninsula in far north Queensland in July 2026. Picture: ADF
The bromancer knew only one way to advance: attack!
It’s certainly true that the ultimate nightmare biological weapon of scientific imagination – a highly infectious, substantially incurable virus, with high mortality, which took a couple of weeks to manifest symptoms, and links only to a gene associated with a specific ethnicity – would be beyond terrorists. But you could get something a lot less sophisticated than that which was still pretty deadly. AI has a bias for attack. It exaggerates the defender’s dilemma. Defenders have to be right every time, attackers only once. This is not a counsel of despair. Nuclear weapons, radiological weapons, biological and chemical weapons were all thought likely to cause massive destruction and loss of life before now, but constant vigilance, the war on terror and an innate understanding by states that they want to possess such means but not use them, for fear of retaliation, and certainly not give them to terrorists or criminals, has mostly kept us safe. The difference with AI is that it’s not a narrow, complex technology, like nuclear weapons. It’s a general technology which can be used to demystify and scale up and magnify any system of attack.
Having roundly mocked it, why not now take it seriously and quote it? The government’s Intergenerational Report predicted that AI will drive the nation’s productivity growth, but warns of the dangers to national security and social cohesion as a result of cyber attacks, misinformation and scams.
Aw, what a cute little bot, but the bromancer's heart was hardened:
Alastair MacGibbon, former deputy director-general of ASD and later cyber security adviser to the Prime Minister, tells me that AI has “radically increased our threat environment”. The current head of ASD, Abigail Bradshaw, testified to parliament that ASD needs high-end American AI corporate partners. She said: “ASD cannot effectively assess threats or defend against technology it cannot see or understand.” The Albanese government has sent out confused signals. The only chance Australia has of getting any purchase, any protection, in the AI environment is through the closest possible partnership with the US and its AI corporates. Yet ministers have talked airily of criminal prosecutions against US companies for the unintentional, and finally harmless, Medicare data breach. The situation is far too serious for that. AI is coming on the winds of hurricanes. We’ll need our friends close to cope with it. AI has “democratised attack”, MacGibbon says. It can use huge quantities of computer power to find vulnerabilities no one else could find, which perhaps no one ever knew existed. It can rapidly write code to exploit those vulnerabilities. And it can chain all those attacks on all those vulnerabilities together.
The reptiles flung in a meme designed to please the hive mind ... Businesses, such as @bodystrong.reformer, have used AI deepfakes to post memes about PM Anthony Albanese being their business partner, after capital gains changes in the budget. Picture: Instagram
Talk about understanding what turns on the lizard Oz:
MacGibbon says it will take years to fully upgrade all the relevant Australian IT systems, even with the national infrastructure protocols previous governments have put in place. And it’s never once and done. Even with active AI defences, with friendly AI agents searching out the hostiles, attackers will be relentlessly improving their capabilities. One vulnerability that worries Gilding is how much Chinese equipment we use in our infrastructure. He says: “If you’re using Chinese kit you can’t defend against it because the networks are owned by Chinese companies, which by law are subject to the direction of Chinese security agencies.” Malcolm Turnbull has suggested many nations and companies will choose Chinese AI because it’s cheaper than US models. Yet MacGibbon and others point out that all Chinese AI is designed to support socialist values and the power of the Chinese Communist Party. The implications of that are severe. US AI companies are building data centres in many countries. It’s silly to think Australia unique. However, as a Five Eyes intelligence partner, with a stable legal and political system, and stable geography as well, Australia could be an attractive location beyond the US for it to disperse some of its AI-model training and development to. This would be of immeasurable benefit to Australia.
How bad dit it get? The reptiles even trotted out a greenie ... New Australian Greens leader David Shoebridge warned in 2025 that the government had delayed acting on the dangers of AI-generated deepfakes, and its impact to derail the federal election. Picture: NewsWire/ Martin Ollman
The bromancer continued in his state of deep gloom. It might not be like fighting WWII again:
Overall, this was a very bad week for Australian security. In David Shoebridge, the Greens have elected their first leader with serious knowledge about defence issues. He will put Labor’s ill-articulated defence policy under pressure from the left, and could disturb Labor’s always jittery, febrile, activist base. The inflation jump is also disastrous for defence. Its budget is compensated for international currency variations, but not for unforecast inflation. In four years in office, the Albanese government has increased overall federal government spending by a massive 2.5 per cent of GDP, but not defence. This year, defence spending will be just 2.02 per cent of GDP, just what it was when Labor came to office. So, take the worst strategic circumstances since World War II, without changing the dollars available; add in massive expenditure for a nuclear submarine fleet which won’t be ready until the 2050s; then watch the threat level ratchet up radically due to AI; and then do absolutely nothing extra in terms of national effort. That’s the Lucky Country determined to be the Dumb Country. Let’s hope no one throws an AI stone through our glass window.
What on earth is happening?
Here was the pond prepared to go along with mad king Donald and see AI - or even SI - as a benevolent offering, with no downsides, guarded by a one page self-regulation deed put together by heavyweights on a paper towel and signed with a quill pen, offering security to the Unites States, and the world...
The White House misspelled “United States” under the signature of Donald Trump on an accord he signed with AI executives on Tuesday. At the bottom of the accord on “Super Intelligence”, the term Trump has used to rebrand artificial intelligence, the president’s signature appeared as “President of the Unites States”. It is unclear how the misspelling occurred or whether it will appear in the Federal Register, the database that contains official presidential actions and other government documents.
What could go wrong, with humanity on top of everything, and larnin' the bots how to spell?
As a coda, the reptiles have gone back to offering thumb sketches of their contributors, and who is the pond to argue?
Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan is The Australian's foreign editor and one of the most influential national security and foreign affairs analysts in Australia. He also writes about Christianity and culture. His most recent book, How Christians Can Succeed Today, completes a trilogy on Christianity, including the best-selling God is Good for You. Active on TV, radio and as a conference speaker, he has interviewed presidents and prime ministers all over the world, travelling on assignment to every continent except the polar ice caps. A previous book, When We Were Young and Foolish, was an entertaining memoir of culture, politics and journalism. He has been the paper's Washington correspondent, Beijing correspondent and as foreign editor travels widely, bringing readers unique behind the scenes insights.
At this point the pond knew what had to be done. While spending time with the bromancer and the Angelic one, it had slowly been building up strength for the inevitable Everest climb...
The header: What comes next? Albanese government trapped as rising interest rates, inflation hammer Labor brand By Paul Kelly Editor-at-Large
The promise of listening to a bot voice do "Ned" for an interminable time: Listen to this article 15 min
The caption for the snap of the major players in "Ned's" medieval morality play - well done Emilia, a collage for the ages: From left: One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, Treasurer Jim Chalmers, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, RBA governor Michele Bullock and Opposition Leader Angus Taylor. Picture-montage: Emilia Tortorella
The cry for logarithmic help: Make us preferred on Google
Just like the bromancer, "Ned"was in full crisis mode, though this was a different crisis:
The Albanese government is facing a world it never foresaw – more interest rate increases, falling house prices, compressed wages, rising unemployment, lower economic growth, and flatlining productivity. Normally this would gift the political opposition, but normality no longer exists. “It’s only a Labor government that ever does the big things,” an embattled Anthony Albanese defiantly declared this week. His Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, targeting One Nation and the Coalition, said they are “one and the same” as agents of “endless negativity” who “talk the place down” motivated by politics, not economics.
A gentle reprimand for Jimbo, a hapless cork bobbing on mad King Donald's ocean: Treasurer Jim Chalmers seems unable to exert the necessary authority for a treasurer in cabinet. Picture: Nikki Short
Pardon the pond if it seeks its own visual relief by turning to the immortal Rowe, building to his full cartoon detail by detail:
That's more like it, as "Ned" ravaged Jimbo:
Labor faces an assault on its governing model – its faith in public spending and its strategy to become the party of modern Australia by backing healthcare, childcare, the NDIS, defence, renewables, and women’s rights. It is now trapped with the domestic consequences of its policies in a far more disruptive world with growth stalled and inflation high – with the highest spending for 40 years at 26.9 per cent of GDP, taxes running at 24.1 per cent of GDP, a shade under the record high, and interest rates on a relentless upwards curve. Household hardship will intensify. The community is resentful and ready to attribute blame. The Labor Party seems unable to grasp the situation it faces. Without resolute action, it risks historic damage to the Labor economic brand. Chalmers seems unable to exert the necessary authority for a treasurer in cabinet, and senior cabinet ministers look weak, utterly different to the robust voices in the Hawke and Keating cabinets over the central policy issues. In politics today there is a guaranteed certainty and a great uncertainty. The certainty is that the world Labor never envisaged will penalise and further weaken the Albanese government, while the uncertainty is who becomes the final beneficiary: Pauline Hanson’s party or the Angus Taylor-led Coalition? The moment of truth is approaching for the centre-right of politics and the Liberal Party. With Labor vulnerable on the economy, this is the golden opportunity for the Liberals to reclaim the economy as their strength.
Unleash freedumb boy, and evoke how latte sippers can be hounds : Opposition treasury spokesman Tim Wilson on Friday accused Anthony Albanese and Labor of setting the ATO upon small business 'like a pack of Rottweilers'.
Sadly the immortal Rowe didn't have a portrait of freedumb boy, but he did have a portrait of a Rottweiler ...
"Ned" was gloomy about everybody and everything. "We'll all be rooned" was strong in the lizard Oz this day ...
If the Liberals under Taylor, deputy Jane Hume and opposition Treasury spokesman Tim Wilson cannot meet this challenge, what is their purpose? The party’s survival as a viable force probably hinges on this task. The risk is that anti-Albanese anger becomes tied to pro-Hanson populism. Are Albanese and Hanson locked into a cycle as direct rivals? Does a weaker Albanese mean a stronger Hanson? Will such polarisation assist Hanson’s party at the expense of Taylor’s party, thereby defying normality? The most recent Newspoll, before Tuesday’s rate rise, had Labor’s primary vote falling to 27 per cent, below One Nation on 30 per cent, with the Coalition on 19 per cent. There is a new challenge facing Albanese and Chalmers: being reliable managers of adversity and tough times. They don’t plan any radical policy shift but playing the blame game won’t suffice. Labor will need to sort out a degree of policy and political adjustments running to the 2028 election. Australia’s prosperity has become a function of beating inflation and resurrecting productivity. These are epic challenges demanding quality leadership. The question becomes: does the public think One Nation has the slightest answer to the issues of inflation and productivity? For how long might centre-right supporters indulge themselves with this delusion? The decision by the Reserve Bank board to lift the cash rate to 4.6 per cent, the highest in 15 years, with more rate rises coming, confirms a more intense era for Australia, demanding economic policy changes with skilled politics to navigate this path.
As everyone knows, a denial is a sure sign of guilt, at least for the hive mind ... Prime Minister Anthony Albanese denies a rift over inflation's causes between his Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, and RBA Governor Michele Bullock
It's despair all round ...
"Ned: proved he could actually regurgitate what the Reserve Bank had said:
The policy disputes over spending, tax, inflation and productivity will become the directional test for the country’s future. This also becomes a moment of identity for the centre-right: backing in Hanson’s party as the leading economic responder would testify to the right’s intellectual and policy collapse, though the extent of its wider cultural rot might be too advanced to prevent that outcome. It would almost certainly end in a Labor victory. The ability of the centre-right to delude itself is remarkable. It was on display before the 2025 election when it pumped up its tyres thinking that Peter Dutton could either win or come close – only to exhale at Albanese’s massive election victory. The central dilemma for Chalmers is the absence of any quick fix for our economic woes. The government enters an advanced economic hardship phase with a perilously low primary vote and a stubborn resistance to major policy redesign. Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock put the government and markets on notice this week with the fourth rate rise this year.
There's a portrait for that:
Carry on thumping:
She had three messages: the bank was ready to lift rates again to curb inflation; the central source of the problem was “domestic capacity pressures”, which meant demand exceeding supply; and the inflation challenge was magnified because productivity was “doing nothing”. The bank, cognisant of being too dovish in the previous upwards cycle, knows it cannot repeat the same mistake. The cash rate will be further lifted to 4.85 per cent. Another rise beyond 5 per cent is predicted by many economists. Australia now has the second-highest interest rates in the developed world after Iceland. The community confronts the bind of falling house prices, rising mortgage payments and risks of negative equity. Beyond that, the rising cost of global capital tied to huge government deficits and the vast demands of AI companies guarantees a world where financing public debt comes at a higher price with greater risks. The Reserve Bank Financial Stability Review warned of debt sustainability concerns in major countries and the potential for a change of sentiment towards the AI investment boom – factors that contribute to global financial stability dangers.
Want another mindless and meaningless visual distraction? The lizard Oz's graphics department is your friend: With interest rates on a relentless upwards curve, household hardship will intensify – the community is resentful, ready to attribute blame.
The pond is more than ready to attribute blame to the lizard Oz's graphic department, but the blame shouldn't be attributed to the mad king, it's more that no one thought that the Faux Noise favourite would be that mad, and so precautions should have started at home.
The primary source of Australia’s inflation problem is home grown, but exacerbated by the Middle Eastwar. Offering a different emphasis to the Treasurer, Bullock said: “This isn’t all about the Middle East conflict. It is making things much worse but we did start from a position of excess demand and that’s why we started raising interest rates even before the conflict started.” Yet the big picture points to an Australian dilemma on a far larger scale. To a significant extent, Labor has misread the economic times in which it governs. It failed to sufficiently prioritise beating inflation; it lifted government spending to untenable levels; it was too slow in addressing the productivity collapse and is now stranded, relying on AI to do the job; it presided over economic growth of diminished quality that prioritised population growth over productivity growth, the upshot being stagnant living standards; it misjudged the degree to which interest rates are likely to settle at a far higher level than seen for the past 15 years; and it underestimated the downside of permanent budget deficits in terms of debt interest, high tax and undermining productivity.
We all know what to make of AI, thanks to the bromancer and the Angelic one, and still no sign of SI: The Treasurer is banking on AI to boost productivity through the economy. Picture: Nikki Short
"Ned" sank into his usual gloom. There's never been a falling cloud that hasn't sent him into Chicken Little mode:
This suggests a decisive moment of truth in Australian public policy. The signals from Albanese and Chalmers mean there is no major policy shift coming but Labor will need to show it is responsive to the mounting challenges. Deloitte Access Economics partner Stephen Smith told Inquirer: “While Australia is expected to avoid a recession in the aggregate, households will continue to experience recession-like conditions. The RBA can still suppress aggregate demand but only by applying more pressure to the sectors that respond. The adjustment will therefore be concentrated among lower-income and mortgaged households, dwelling construction, and business investment outside the AI ecosystem. “Inflation in Australia is broadbased, persistent and well above the 2-3 per cent target band. Headline inflation has accelerated to 4.0 per cent on the back of higher fuel prices and is being felt directly in household budgets. The prices of goods and services that are not exposed to the whims of global price fluctuations are causing most of Australia’s inflation issue. Government spending is too high. It is not the sole driver of Australia’s domestic inflation problem but it is a contributing factor. “The collective voice of economists has become hoarse from the persistent and consistent pleading for substantial reforms across tax, regulation, spending, skills, federal-state relations and the like. Those calls have largely been met with the white noise of political constraints and vocal vested interests. “Such reforms are no longer optional.”
Sure, and getting News Corporation to pay tax in Australia is no longer optional, except we might just be dealing with vocal vested interests.
There came a snap of a man giving comfort to the reptiles and to "Ned": Former Treasury secretary Ken Henry said the budget should be in surplus. Picture: AAP
Luckily the immortal Rowe had an even better illustration:
"Ned" evoked the dragons:
Labor is humiliated by the collective opinion of its former advisers, former Treasury secretaries, Ken Henry and Martin Parkinson and former Reserve Bank governor Phil Lowe. Henry and Parkinson have previously said the budget should be in surplus, given strong employment and commodity prices, rather than a $22.3bn deficit for the past financial year, albeit a $6bn improvement from the figure last May. The implication is unavoidable: what advice has the current Treasury given Chalmers about the deficit? On what basis do Treasury and Labor project in the recent Intergenerational Report ongoing deficits for the next 40 years? These projections testify to Australian complacency, Labor’s flawed outlook and the dismal quality of economic leadership. Parkinson told Inquirer: “I warned in April of the risk of stagflation. The absence of any improvement in the inflation outlook since then in part because of the ongoing war in the Gulf, and combined with the absence of productivity growth, the risk of stagflation is higher now than it was in April. “Australia’s current productivity performance is a reflection of disappointing efforts over the past quarter century. “Productivity cannot be changed quickly but it needs to be changed and it is critical to future living standards.”
The reptiles interrupted for an AV distraction, on topic:
Next video thumbnail Former RBA governor Philip Lowe blasts Labor's tax changes Former Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe has criticised Labor's tax changes, saying the amendments that go beyond housing will be to Australia's detriment, and that its redistribution agenda needs to be scrapped for one that grows investment. Mr Lowe was speaking during a webinar in his capacity as the chairman of the ASX-listed Future Generation Australia. The former Reserve Bank governor said he was “disappointed” by the government’s tax changes and feels as though Australia is “losing its way”.
It just had to be the IPA, friend of big tobacco and climate science denialism:
In his recent interview with the Institute of Public Affairs, Lowe attacked fiscal policy, saying Labor had contributed to inflation and prioritised income and wealth redistribution over economic growth: “Now we find ourselves running sizeable budget deficits at a time we’re at full employment and commodity prices are very high. “We should be running sizeable surpluses.” Richard Holden from the University of NSW told Inquirer: “I think a lot of government policy has completely misjudged the times. It’s hard to get away from the fact that in 2022-23, the budget papers show spending as a share of GDP was 24.3 per cent. It’s now 26.9 per cent. That’s a colossal expansion in the size of government. “I think when they came into office Labor took the view inflation was going to come down anyway, so they could spend a lot and still see inflation coming down. Plenty of people warned at the time it was a flawed strategy and it’s turned out to be exactly that. “The problem is we didn’t get spending under control and the Reserve Bank didn’t raise rates early enough and often enough, so we didn’t get inflation under control. The government’s failure to tackle spending or do anything meaningful to boost productivity means we are going to see higher interest rates. “We’ve just been through this long run of extremely low interest rates over a number of years and people got into a mindset that you would have official interest rates at around 2 per cent and mortgage rates around 4 per cent. Now the outlook looks like official rates with a 4 in front of them and mortgage rates with a 6 in front of them. That’s a huge change, it’s a 50 per cent higher interest bill. It’s going to ricochet throughout the economy.”
Then came an illustration which not only summarised the state of wallets, but which suggested the depth of "Ned's" thinking, not to mention the relentless fatuity of the lizard Oz graphics department, what's left of it: The real burden of adjustment in this country is going to fall on households.
By this time in the climb, correspondents will recognise "Ned's" favourite tactic, of blowing up his bloviation to an even more interminable length by inserting the thoughts of others:
During Bullock’s Firechat Chat at CEDA on September 22 she was asked about AI as the “great white hope” for productivity. The governor replied: “I think, yes, it is the great white hope. AI is the great white hope to improve productivity. When I talk to colleagues around the world about this, I think everyone thinks that, but I think everyone also agrees that there are very few signs yet that AI is actually influencing the supply side of the economy.” It is a revealing insight into the frustration and desperation that is engulfing the economic class. The recent Intergenerational Report projected productivity grow rising to 1.2 per cent, yet it is hard to discern the means to get there, outside the hope of AI, a revolutionary technology heavy with opportunity and risks to match. Principal forecaster at EQ Economics Warren Hogan told Inquirer: “The market is pricing in another rate hike this year and a very high probability of a third rate hike in early 2027, which is a reasonable assessment. If Australia’s government cannot cut spending, the RBA will be under pressure to keep raising rates until policy is genuinely restrictive. “We’ve had 40 years of decline in the cost of capital and labour costs. Now we’re in a world where interest rates are going to be on an upward trajectory. The real burden of adjustment in this country is going to fall on households. The era of governments around the world having no discipline, being able to run and fund deficits without there being a big impact on the cost of money and squeezing out the private sector, that’s over. “It’s because for the first time in decades we’ve got a genuine increase in demand for capital from the tech companies to fund the AI infrastructure. The capex rollout from the tech companies is approaching $1 trillion this year; a handful of firms planning to spend $5 trillion over the next few years is historic and truly stunning. The great bulk of funding will come from global debt markets.
Is it possible for this exhaustive, exhausting carry on not to mention the French clock devotee?
Paul Keating, right, and top left, used the 40th anniversary of the banana republic statement to issue warning to Jim Chalmers, bottom left, about debt threat, the need for low inflationary growth and importance of fundamental reform of the tax system. Pictures: News Corp/Supplied
Is this he?
There seems to be a likeness, and the once despised figure is now a heroic club deployed to beat the current mob into a pulp:
“This reveals two uncomfortable realities about the future of the global economy – both the cost of labour and capital are on a long-term upward trajectory. The strategies of governments running deficits is going to enter a whole new phase. “Australia’s productivity problem is that we have grown the size of government too much. The market sector or private sector is not doing too badly from a productivity perspective. Our problem is that we are effectively taxing the productive to fund the unproductive. The only way we are going to lift productivity is through enhancing our labour supply with capital and technology, and until we get the size of government down, the job won’t be done.” In a podcast this week with Michelle Grattan, Chalmers defended his record, pointing to the productivity package in the last budget saying it was the “broadest” in decades, highlighted cuts in income tax, measures to cushion cost-of-living pressures, called AI a source of “more dynamism and more productivity”, said economic growth in Australia remained stronger than in most advanced economies, and said the primary influence on the economy at the moment was external – the Iranian war impact on fuel and oil prices. Here’s a postscript: in the 1980s at the time of the “banana republic” emergency, as declared by Paul Keating, policy shock therapy was applied to the economy. Spending in real terms over three years was cut by 1.1 per cent, 0.9 per cent and 3.1 per cent – a result unprecedented during the past 50 years (outside adjustments required after a crisis-induced fiscal stimulus.) Yes, inflation was far higher then and the economic threat was far more severe than today. Still, it shows what a Labor government was once capable of doing.
Thank the absent lord that's over. The pond left it around the second gobbet, and yet there's still a morsel to go, because "Ned" deserves his thumb ...
Paul Kelly Editor-At-Large Paul Kelly is Editor-at-Large on The Australian. He was previously Editor-in-Chief of the paper and he writes on Australian politics, public policy and international affairs. Paul has covered Australian governments from Gough Whitlam to Anthony Albanese. He is a regular television commentator and the author and co-author of twelve books books including The End of Certainty on the politics and economics of the 1980s. His recent books include Triumph and Demise on the Rudd-Gillard era and The March of Patriots which offers a re-interpretation of Paul Keating and John Howard in office.
And so to bring it all together, and many thanks to the immortal Rowe for making "Ned" sufferable.
He titled it Eco (ecco, ecce?) illo via kehoe which the pond guesses might mean "Behold, that is the "way" or "Here is that path" Kehoe!
And with all that done, and even though the pond has run way too long, it would like to keep the discussion of "western values" going.
The pond's current toilet reading is The Cambridge Illustrated History of China by Patricia Buckley Ebrey CUP, reprinted edition 1997.
There came a reminder that the onion muncher's mob were nothing but vile grifters, drug peddlars, pushers and freaks, worse than any street kid in The Wire trying to make a living.
What an indefensible mob they were, the lowest of the low, vile scum, and yet somehow the embodiment of "western values"...
OPIUM AND THE OPIUM WAR
It would be tedious to relate all of the military encounters between China and Western powers over the course of the nineteenth century and the penalties China suffered in consequence. The first of these encounters, the Opium War of 1840-42, is, however, worth recounting because it set the tone for those to follow and came to carry great symbolic weight in China. In Chinese eyes there could not have been a more blatant case of international bullying, of the morally repugnant imposing their will on those trying to do the right thing. This moral dimension in turn made it that much more difficult for Chinese to discern in western civilization anything worth adopting. The rise of Britain as a great naval power dependent on foreign trade probably made conflict with China inevitable, since China had no desire to organize trade on the European model and Britain had the power to force acceptance of its terms. The specific circumstances of the conflict, however, were tied up with trade in the narcotic opium. Opium, a derivative of the poppy, had long been used in China for medicinal purposes, such as control of diarrhoea. In the seventeenth century the practice of smoking opium in combination with tobacco spread from southeast Asia. In the eighteenth century a way was found to smoke pure opium sap in a pipe. Soon people were smoking opium simply for its narcotic effects: it relieved both physical and emotional pain and made tedious or physically taxing work seem less onerous. But opium was addictive; withdrawal symptoms included severe cramps, muscle twitching, chills, and nausea. Following the British conquest of large parts of India, the British invested massively in the manufacture and distribution of opium, seeing its sale as a way to solve the problem of their balance of payments with China. The East India Company controlled the sale of opium in India and licensed private traders to ship it to China. Beginning with only 200 chests of opium in 1729, imports had passed 1,000 chests in 1767 and 4,500 by 1800. During the next quarter century imports more than doubled to 10,000 chests, then quadrupled to 40,000 in 1838. The Chinese authorities were well aware of the evils caused by opium smoking. By the early nineteenth century addicts included government clerks and runners as well as imperial clansmen and eunuchs at court. To fight the spread of addiction, in 1800 both importation and domestic production were banned. In 1813 smoking opium was outlawed, made punishable by 100 blows and wearing the ‘cangue’ (a heavy wooden collar) for a month. Open trading then disappeared but the British and other traders managed to stay clear of the Chinese authorities by docking their boats off the coast of Guangdong and selling the drug to Chinese smugglers who would distribute it through a series of middlemen, making it very difficult for the Qing government to trace the major dealers. Suppression was also hampered by the huge profitability of the trade; criminal gangs stepped in and found ways to buy off police and officials, in ways the modern world is all too familiar with. Soon the outflow of silver caused by the opium trade gave additional urgency to the need to solve the opium problem. By the 1820s two million taels of silver were flowing out of China a year, which rose to nine million by the early 1830s. In 1839, after proposals to legalize opium were rejected in favour of tougher anti-smuggling measures, the experienced and high-minded official Lin Zexu was dispatched to Guangzhou to compel the foreign traders to stop bringing opium into China and the Chinese to stop smoking. He confiscated pipes, seized opium stores, and arrested some 1,600 Chinese. The foreigners proved harder to manage. Lin Zexu used threats and bribes to get the foreign merchants to turn over their stores of opium. He offered to trade the opium for tea at a ratio of one to five and threatened to execute the heads of the Co-hong. He wrote a letter to Queen Victoria with the following appeal: ‘Suppose there were people from another country who carried opium for sale to England and seduced your people into buying and smoking it; certainly your honourable ruler would deeply hate it and be bitterly aroused.’ He even barricaded the foreigners in their factories to pressure them to turn over their stocks. By this point the British had abolished the East India Company and a superintendent of trade had been appointed to represent British interests in Guangzhou. To end this impasse, the British superintendent, Charles Elliot, collected the opium from the merchants and turned it over to Lin, who promptly destroyed it in the presence of the British. Lin ruled that only traders who put up bonds and promised not to deal in opium would thereafter be allowed to trade at Guangzhou. Lin also pressured the Portuguese to expel the British from Macao, as a consequence of which they moved to the barren island of Hong Kong. Meanwhile, in England, commercial interests were pushing for war with China. William Jardine, of the major opium trading firm of Jardine, Matheson, and Company, sailed to London to lobby for war. Once the decision went his way, he supplied assistance, leasing vessels to the British fleet and lending pilots and translators. A British expeditionary force left India in 1840 with sixteen warships and thirty-one other ships. In preparation for a military confrontation, Lin bought new cannons for the forts and laid great chains across the estuary leading into Guangzhou. This caused no problem for the British expeditionary force, since they simply bypassed Guangzhou and made for the major ports of Ningbo and Tianjin, which they shut down in short order. The Chinese could no longer refuse to negotiate. The agreement worked out in Guangzhou called for ceding Hong Kong, repaying the Briths the cost of their expedition (an indemnity of six million Mexican silver dollars), and allowing direct intercourse between officials of each country. Upon learning the terms of the settlement, the public in both countries was outraged. Lin Zexu had already been exiled for having allowed the war to start; now the official who negotiated the treaty was brought to the capital in chains. In England a new expeditionary force was ordered, this time with 10,000 men, more than twice the previous number, and in 1841 the British occupied several strategic coastal cities, including Shanghai. Dozens of Qing officers committed suicide when defeat was certain. Finally, when the British took up positions outside the walls of Nanjing, the Chinese were forced to sue for peace. The Treaty of Nanjing, concluded at gunpoint, raised the indemnity to twenty-one million ounces of silver, abolished the Co-hong, opened five treaty ports (Guangzhou, Xiamen, Fuzhou, Ningbo, and Shanghai), and fixed the tariff at 5 per cent. Through the provision of ‘extraterritoriality’, British subjects in China were answerable only to British law, even in disputes with Chinese. The 'most-favoured nation' clause provided that if another nation extracted a new privilege from China, that same privilege would be extended automatically to Britain. During the course of the nineteenth century China signed many more ‘unequal’ treaties with imperialist powers, but the basic terms had been set. China could not set its own tariffs and eventually even had to appoint European officers to collect them. When Chinese did not buy the Europeans’ woollens, knives, and pianos in the hoped-for numbers, European merchants did not fault their own expectations but the obstructionism of Chinese officials; they demanded more treaty ports and fewer restrictions on trade. In 1860, an Anglo-French expedition occupied Beijing for a month to force the acceptance of new treaties, which brought the number of treaty ports to fourteen. By the end of the century more treaty ports were added and large areas within some treaty ports were leased in perpetuity to foreign powers. These concessions, where foreigners did not have to obey Chinese laws, came to resemble international cities attached to the Chinese mainland. Foreign countries won the right to establish legations and consulates in China, with their diplomats treated according to European definitions of international protocol. Also as a result of gunboat diplomacy, Christian missionaries obtained rights to preach throughout China. By the end of the century foreign businessmen had even gained the right to open factories on Chinese soil. Another consequence of the Opium War was the continued increase in opium addiction. Trade in opium was legalized by treaty in 1860, and opium remained a major item of trade until the end of the century, though the proportion imported declined after 1880 with the expansion of domestic production. By the end of the century, western observers estimated that about 10 per cent of the population of China smoked opium, with a third to a half of them addicted. This would mean on the order of fifteen million opium addicts and about another thirty million occasional users. The highest rates of addiction were probably found among imperial clansmen and bannerman, living on meagre stipends without much to do.
Next up the Belgians in the Congo, exemplifying "western values", in much the same way that Carthage brought out the best in "Roman values"?
And for something else indefensible, another immortal Rowe ...
Way past time for a little light relief.
Relax, bromancer, all is well with our friends. The gatling hasn't jammed, the square hasn't broken, there's no blood, and certainly no beardos or weirdos...
