In which the pond features a quartet of reptiles, with Lloydie of the Amazon a chirpy violin, the bromancer a grave cello, Dame Groan as a double bass, and a grey man as the nuking viola ... (not your average quartet!)

 

A busy day today, with the pond hoping to cram no less than four reptiles into its portmanteau, with none of them featuring mad van drivers ...

It was over on the extreme far right that the pond's real challenge lay ...

Dame Groan, the bro, a grey desire to keep on nuking ... and in view of the ongoing absence of Major Mitchell, a special off-sheet treat from Lloydie of the Amazon ...

It's been so long that the pond almost forgot Lloydie was there, and yet it was only a two minute distraction. 

Lloydie's outing was a companion piece to another grum green reptile moment ...

GRIM WARNING
Electricity bills to surge amid ‘going green’ alarm
A sustained period of high electricity bills amid a cost-of-living crisis adds to concerns over the cost of Australia’s green energy roll-out.
By Colin Packham and Perry Williams

Thanks Col, thanks Perry, but if the pond wants grum, it'll always go the Lloydie, especially as it's only two minutes.

Two minutes! Or so the reptiles timed it. It's a wonder Lloydie bothered to get out of bed ...

The header promised the usual FUD: Future of power uncertain and expensive, The big take-out from recent developments in the nation’s energy transformation is that all roads point to rising costs and fresh questions about the blueprint for change.

Yet again a terrifying snap of whale killers designed to produce fear and loathing in the hive mind ... Households in NSW face the steepest increase in electricity prices, up to $280, while Queensland household bills are projected to increase by as much as $77 and South Australia as much as $71. Picture: Zoe Phillips

Is Zoe sent out on endless wind farm patrol so that there's an endless supply of whale killer images for the lizard Oz?

On with patented Lloydie FUD ...

Death, taxes and higher electricity bills for households and businesses are the new certainties of life. The big take-out from recent developments in the nation’s energy transformation is that all roads point to rising costs and fresh questions about the blueprint for change.
The Energy Market Regulator on Monday confirmed that households will pay up to an additional $280 a year for electricity.
The increase is because of higher prices in the wholesale market caused by lower-than-expected supplies of renewable energy and less reliability from a rapidly deteriorating coal-power fleet.
Households in NSW face the steepest increase, up to $280, while Queensland household electricity bills are projected to increase by as much as $77 and South Australia as much as $71.
Australian Energy Council chief executive Louisa Kinnear says price pressures will continue as a result of the energy transition, with the costs of the poles and wires as well as retail costs all contributing to price rises.
This follows confirmation by the Australian Energy Market Operator last week that the cost of building transmission lines had gone up by up to 55 per cent.
As a result, AEMO says it will investigate whether planned transmission projects that have not been committed are still financially worthwhile.
More attention will now be paid to how to use spare capacity from household rooftop solar systems and batteries, otherwise known as Consumer Energy Resources.
AEMO admits it is a big challenge.
While AEMO’s 2024 system plan had a focus on five national market regions with about 300 bulk supply points, the 2026 system plan will for the first time consider low-voltage networks. This will involve more than 500,000 low-voltage transformer sites and the CER connected to more than nine million customers.
The feedback from power utilities has been informative.
In April, Transgrid said assumptions that Virtual Power Plants will experience the same level of availability and flexibility to respond to market conditions as an equivalently sized utility-scale battery energy storage system are not reasonable.
Households were unlikely to accept that their assets may be accessed frequently and run very hard because household solar and batteries are primarily investments intended to provide utility and value to consumers rather than the market, Transgrid said.
In March, Queensland power utilities Ergon Energy and Energex gave a similar warning.
“We are cautious of the approach to model customer behaviour based on economically rational models, as we consider most CER investments do not conform to these modelling outcomes,” the utilities said.
“For example, based on our anecdotal experience, AEMO’s assumptions regarding the level of battery energy storage systems uptake supported by Virtual Power Plants may be overstated.”
In short, the costs of intermittent generation and distribution are rising.
The reliability of coal is declining. The costs of transmission lines risk becoming uneconomic. The industry is grappling with its social licence in rural and remote areas.
The alternative of taking power from rooftop solar and batteries fits with government plans – and industry hopes – for new household subsidies but has many challenges that are known and many yet to be discovered.
The future is higher costs and less certainty.

That effort deserves a 'toon, celebrating Lloydie standing with Little to be Proud of ...

And so to the Middle East with the bromancer ...

The pond regrets that it must pass over the apologist humbug offered up in this outing

Wrong target for PM’s Gaza aid fury
Anthony Albanese’s condemnation of Israel’s efforts to relieve the aid situation in Gaza as ‘completely unacceptable’ reflects an extremely troubling oversimplification of a deeply complex issue.
by Arsen Ostrovsky

Completely rich, given Head of US-backed Gaza aid group resigns, saying he will not abandon 'principles' ...

While the plight of civilians in Gaza is deeply concerning, it is imperative that Australia’s response is informed by a comprehensive understanding of the factors at play and Hamas’s exacerbation of the suffering. Acknowledging the complexities and engaging in balanced diplomacy will better serve the goals of peace and humanitarian relief.
Arsen Ostrovsky is an Australian-Israeli human rights lawyer.

Ain't nothing complex about starvation and ethnic cleansing...

So it was on to the bro, thereby allowing the pond to honour a correspondent's link, Greg Sheridan piles on the Murdoch delusions.

How it gladdens the pond's heart to see other herpetologists at work (many ta's for that one), and now on with the piling up of more bromancer delusions ...

The header: Is a new conflict in the Middle East just around the corner?, Israelis understand they can’t destroy Iran’s nuclear program from the air. But they believe they can hit ‘choke points’ in the program and set it back several years.

The caption: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Picture: Pool Photo via AP

The futile attempt to escape ethnic cleansing and mass starvation: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

As he often is, the bro was in war monger mode this day, but he was also a little hesitant and uncertain. So many possible wars, so little time:

Israel is likely to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities within the next six months. A fascinating piece in the well-regarded US conservative journal, the Middle East Forum, argues an Israeli attack is imminent. Sources in Israel think that assessment overblown. They emphasise Benjamin Netanyahu’s government will be careful about negotiations the Trump administration is having with Iran over a possible agreement.
The MEF reports that the US Defence Intelligence Agency believes Iran could produce enough nuclear weapons-grade material for one nuclear bomb within a week, if it decided to. After Iran twice attacked Israel with missile volleys, Israel responded by wiping out much of Iran’s most sophisticated air defence capabilities.
Therefore, there’s a certain logic to Israel undertaking a strike now, or soon. The longer it waits, the more Iran will rebuild air defences, which could enact a serious toll on Israeli planes and aircrew. Israelis understand they can’t destroy Iran’s nuclear program from the air. But they believe they can hit “choke points” in the program and set it back several years.
Israeli military action has vastly reduced the potential of Iranian proxies, notably Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the Houthis in Yemen, to provide significant military support to Iran in the event of Israel-Iran conflict. Similarly, the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, and the subsequent destruction of most of Syria’s conventional armed forces by the Israeli Defence Force, has removed from the board Iran’s single most important state ally in the Middle East. For some Israelis, therefore, it’s now or never.
However, the possible costs of an Israeli strike are also enormous. Although the Israeli government will ultimately act independently to protect its existential interests, everything depends on Donald Trump. An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is the most predicted, and most postponed, event in the Middle East. Over the past decade or more I have on a handful of occasions been told by people at the very top of the international system that an Israeli strike would shortly take place. To be clear, I’ve never been told that by US or Israeli officials. Nor was I ever given a specific date. But my interlocutors were people at the very top of national systems, who you would expect to know of the likelihood of such a strike. I’ve concluded, and there has been some limited reporting to this effect, that on several different occasions Israel decided it would strike the Iranian facilities but was talked out of it at the last minute by the Americans.

Once again right from the reptile nerve centre came a bonus AV distraction, “The Trump administration is demanding zero enrichment, and that could lead to the collapse of the nuclear talks.”

The bro still knows how to recycle King Donald talking points ...

Barack Obama got an extremely weak deal with the Iranians, which recognised the legitimacy of the Iranian nuclear industry, accepted in principle that Iran could enrich uranium up to a certain point, and had a quite limited duration, so that after the agreement expired Iran faced very few restrictions.
In his first term, Trump withdrew from this deal and imposed heavy sanctions on Iran. Sanctions are Trump’s preferred tool of coercion, almost his preferred tool of statecraft, and they’re often quite effective. In this case they didn’t markedly change Iran’s behaviour but did deprive it of funds. Joe Biden, in one of his countless Middle East miscalculations, greatly softened the sanctions in pursuit of a deal with Iran, which went absolutely nowhere. Now it really seems as if a lot of factors are converging to create a fateful moment of truth.
The Trump administration has been trying one last time to negotiate a full deal with Iran. If it gives up its nuclear program and stops sponsoring terrorists, Iran can be released from all sanctions and, if it wants, welcome US and other international investment. The Iranians, under a lot of pressure, look as though they would enter a deal in which they meaninglessly promise to stop sponsoring terrorism, and also promise to keep their nuclear program at enrichment levels well below that needed for a nuclear weapon. That’s the real sticking point. The Israelis, and Trump in some of his statements, have said the Iranians must abandon all uranium enrichment. This is a perfectly reasonable position. The Iranians time without number have threatened the total physical destruction of Israel. Their official state ideology is one of extreme Islamism, in which both the US and Israel figure as entities of eternal evil, which the Islamic revolution has a duty to destroy.

Along with all that came a snap of King Donald himself, US President Donald Trump. Picture: AP Photo

The pond has no idea how the bromancer thinks he knows what's going down in the King's court. 

The King is certifiably as mad as a cut snake, as shown in this recent all caps effort ...

Imagine if Fidel or Hugo or Morales or Correa or Ortega had come out with that sort of rant. They'd be labelled barking mad banana repuglicans of the South American dictator kind ...

Speaking of a little tea break and biccies away from the bro, the pond couldn't help but notice this splash ...

The Texas Tribute is up to speed on the fuss, and the pond thought the least it could do was help out with an updated suggestion for what would work in classrooms ...

And God spake all these words, saying,

2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of the United States, out of the house of bondage and into the house of thy Lord, thy Donald.
3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me, save the Cantaloupe Caligula, who is, to be fair, a much biglier God then me.
4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, save images graven of the Cantaloupe Caligula, which are a fair and stunning likeness, and who is both a son and a holy ghost to me and a key member of the team.

5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, save that this clause does not in any way whatsoever apply to the Mango Mussolini or his spawn, an all-embracing God from whom I learn daily, visiting upon his children unto many generations the art of the grift, the con, the snake-oil selling and the crypto steal;
6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments, save all the many feared and loathed and despised by the Cantaloupe Caligula, for whom no mercy must be shown, and no commandment kept, and off to a gulag with them.
7. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain, and verily anyone mocking the Mango Mussolini must be in the fake news game and off to the gulag with them.
8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy, unless you happen to be turning Gaza into a new Riviera, but still make no payments for overtime, because if you can't stiff contractors and rely on bankruptcy, why are you in the development/hotel/casino/golf game?
9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work, and on the seventh you shall cheat at golf.
10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates, but you may keep your hotels and golf courses busy and run around demanding to know who the fuck let a stranger within thy gates, and upon discovering them, send them to a gulag.
11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it, and so it may be fruitfully spent preaching climate science denialism and young earth theology.
12. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and if you make up stories about your dad coming from Bavaria and if your mum is Scottish, console yourself at least that she's a white stranger, and so might be spared the gulag and treated as kin of South African farmers.
13. Thou shalt not kill, that's work best assigned to others, though you can consort with and celebrate killers, and issue the odd order to kill or bomb the shit out of things.
14. Thou shalt not commit adultery, but if you do make sure you pay off the porn star and try to do it only every so often in every marriage, remembering to marry often shows you honour the institution -how you like to keep trying it - and besides it's better to marry many times than burn.
15. Thou shalt not steal, for going bankrupt and refusing to pay creditors is simply being an entrepreneur.
16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, because why settle for small porkies (served with wine and bread) when you can lie your golf socks off, and bear false witness against everything and everybody?
17. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's, unless you can steal it and get away with the stealing, especially if it's golden, or at least a model worthy of being a trophy wife, and then everything's fine, feel free to fuck anything and everything that moves, for thine is the power and the narcissistic glory.
18. And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off, because they were in awe, and perhaps the volcano contained long lost Thetans or King Donald himself.

And after that shamefully long distraction - why must correspondents have all the fun? - back to the bromancer for some final bomb, bomb, bomb Iran thoughts ...

The reason the Iranians are willing even to talk about a strong deal with Trump, when they wouldn’t with Biden, is that they fear Trump could hit them militarily. They didn’t have this fear of Biden. My best guess is Trump won’t strike the Iranians militarily under almost any circumstances. Whatever you might say about Trump, you cannot accuse him of recklessly engaging in military conflict. He is not exactly an isolationist. But a central part of his ideological approach is to denigrate, if not altogether repudiate, the element of US international leadership which has involved military action far from home. He did conduct a bombing campaign against the Houthi rebels, against the wishes of his Vice-President. This was ostensibly to stop the Houthis from attacking international shipping, especially US shipping, in the Red Sea. Even this seems to have been partly show: the Houthis had already stopped attacking US and most international shipping. But it allowed Trump to make a triumphal announcement. Notably, Trump didn’t insist the Houthis stop attacking Israel. Nonetheless, he will be far more permissive of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities than Biden or Obama. The Trump administration has already transferred much of the necessary ordnance to the Israelis to do the job. But even with Iran’s air defences degraded, it would be a dangerous and costly job for Israel to do alone. It would be far more effective if the US and Israelis acted together.
Both Israel and the US devote intense intelligence resources to Iran and believe they would know when and if the Iranians move decisively towards a nuclear weapon. The greatest danger from Israel’s point of view is that some of Trump’s advisers sell him on a deal that allows Iran to keep enriching uranium. The Israelis would certainly feel constrained about bombing Iran if Trump himself has just declared victory. But if they felt it necessary, the Israelis would still strike, perhaps after an interval. It’s unlikely the Iranians will accept ending uranium enrichment. A whole new Middle East conflict may be just around the corner.

How else might Benji stay in power, and thereby develop Gaza into the new Riviera?

And so to another short treat, which the reptiles assured the pond was only a three minute read ...

The pond confesses that it watched Four Corners, just for the sheer fun of the Schadenfreude of whether to keep nuking, with Little to be Proud of firm, and even Ted wavering (YouTube link so the ABC can make some money from ads).

The grey man was in the same LP mindset: Defeat is no reason for Coalition to back down on nuclear, If popular support for nuclear began to wobble during the campaign, its cause likely lies in voter reaction to one of the worst political campaigns the Coalition has fought.

A handy target: Former Opposition Leader Peter Dutton... a “timid defence”. Picture: NewsWire / John Gass

A wish never granted: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

Why did the pond make room? 

Well the pond can never get enough of reptiles saying 'tis but a scratch ...

'Tis but a flesh wound, so scratch away ...

Some sage advice to the Liberal Party: don’t wimp out over nuclear power. The heavy election defeat should not be seen as voter rejection of all policies, certainly not nuclear. Several months before the campaign, opinion polls showed more than 50 per cent of Australians were in favour of nuclear and two-thirds said the ban on nuclear should be lifted.
If popular support for nuclear began to wobble during the campaign, its cause likely lies in voter reaction to one of the worst political campaigns the Coalition has fought. To that was added, with regard to nuclear specifically, the timid defence by Peter Dutton of his nuclear plans and his flaccid response to Labor’s blatantly false claim the planned reactors would cost a startling $600bn.
Constant repetition of that figure by Energy Minister Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese crosses the line between legitimate policy promotion and propaganda more suitable to authoritarian regimes. Nuclear experts are scathing in their contempt of the exaggeration.
So, what would be the real capital cost of the nuclear plan? The Coalition’s proposed project consists of seven reactors, five with a capacity of 1000 megawatts each and two small modular reactors of 300MW, for a total of 5600MW. The rogue $600bn is made especially ridiculous when compared with the figure in the 2024 GenCost report contracted by the CSIRO. Commissioned through the government, the GenCost exercise came up with $95bn, or one-sixth of Labor’s wild assertion, but a number Labor presumably accepted initially. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s position, the expected blowout in future energy costs would be considerably ameliorated if nuclear power were adopted. And its emissions-free electricity would assist in achieving Australia’s aim to reduce carbon dioxide.

The point about being in the hive mind and talking only to reptile navels was helped along by unlovely Rita, meter maid ... Sky News host Rita Panahi claims Australia is still “clinging on” to the “fantasy” idea that renewables are the cheapest form of energy. “It’s laughable,” she said. “Have a look at your bill if you think that’s true.” This comes amid the debate over renewables and nuclear energy as Australia attempts to reach its net zero target.

An impeccable, deeply researched, incredibly scientific source, and inspired, the grey man proceeded apace ...

The Australian Energy Market Operator has estimated costs for the planned transition to wind, solar and energy storage in two scenarios: step change, costing $594bn; and progressive, costing $437bn. Frontier Economics, widely respected for its independence, estimates the inclusion of nuclear would cut $150bn from the first scenario and $106bn from the second, with nuclear providing between 10 per cent and 29 per cent of Australia’s electricity.
Not only would nuclear reduce costs of the renewables rollout, it also would greatly reduce the amount of land tied up by renewable energy projects, particularly wind farms. Huge areas of fertile agricultural land, forests and wild animal habitats are under threat.

Would you like some IPA chocolate syrup to drape over Rita, meter maid? Sure thing ...

The Institute of Public Affairs has estimated the area needed for wind and solar farms (assuming they take up roughly the same area) if the Albanese government were to meet its 2030 and 2050 net-zero commitments using renewables alone would be greater than the area of South Australia.
The rising concern is uniting farmers and environmentalists. The wind projects proposed for Queensland, for instance, require 600sq km of remnant forest to be cleared, with 4600km of new haulage roads pushed into the wild. By contrast, a 1000MW nuclear reactor that would power one million homes requires only 0.1sq km. All seven reactors proposed by Dutton’s nuclear policy would need 0.56sq km.
Another false claim Albanese and Bowen made was that nuclear plants would take at least 20 years to bring into operation.
Tony Irwin, a nuclear engineer who built and operated eight nuclear plants in Britain, estimates a 1000MW reactor could be constructed in Australia within four to five years and an SMR in three to four. 

Wait, say what, the pond might yet get a SMR for the back yard? And possibly just a few Xmas's away?

To that needs to be added preparation time. The total exercise would take no more than 10 years, he says. Australia would be able to draw on international expertise such as the World Nuclear Association, which has a program providing support to countries developing plans for nuclear energy, the latest being Kazakhstan.
Nuclear power is enjoying an upsurge around the world. There are 440 reactors in 31 countries, with about 65 under construction and more than 100 planned. Germany and Italy have dropped opposition to nuclear. Australia is the only country in the top 20 economies that neither has nuclear power nor is considering it. Are all the other 19 unaware of the costs and time to build?
In the face of the ALP’s misguided ideology and false claims, the Coalition parties should play a supporting role in educating Australians. But first the Coalition parties need to revisit and strengthen their nuclear policy.
Tony Grey is a former chairman of the Uranium Institute, now the World Nuclear Association.

Oh brave Sir Knight, well played ...

And so to the final treat of the day ...

The reptiles clocked it as a five minute read, and for a nanosecond the pond thought of hiving it off to a late arvo slot, but if you've made it this far, you're clearly a cultist and will down the whole thing in a trice ...

The header:Why Jim Chalmers is facing a Waterloo moment over super, As the mining tax was to Wayne Swan, the 30 per cent tax on superannuation balances of more than $3m is to Jim Chalmers.

The caption: Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers during the first cabinet meeting of the new government at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Martin Ollman/NewsWire

The plaintive plea to click heels and head to Kansas: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

Some might accuse the pond of hypocrisy, what with the pond having pretended to be jaded at the super debate and using it as an excuse to skip hive mind classes on the topic.

But this is Dame Groan. Repeat three times.

There are Dame Groan devotees standing by, counting themselves blessed to be in the lock up with her ...

As the mining tax was to Wayne Swan, the 30 per cent tax on superannuation balances of more than $3m is to Jim Chalmers. In both cases, they thought the new tax imposts were acts of genius designed to produce gushing torrents of new government revenue.
In fact, these taxes are akin to their Waterloo, ending promising careers based on a stubborn refusal to listen to the people who really understand complex tax matters. Preferring to take advice from commercially naive boffins in Treasury, these men pushed on while being egged on by parts of the equally gullible media.

There came a snap to remind hive mind punters of an old favourite reptile punching bag, Wayne Swan. Picture: Jason Edwards/NewsWire

The pond supposes that for the moment all Dame Groan can do is petulantly stomp her foot, and summon the apocalypse, a variation on the Black Knight routine ...

It’s worth briefly recounting the fate of the mining tax. The basic idea was the government could identify “above-normal” profits being made by resources companies and impose a high rate of tax on these super-profits without there being any adverse consequences for production or investment. Billions of dollars would be raised without imposing any real costs on the economy.
That was the theory, at least. But in practice, there is no accurate way of identifying “above-normal” profits. And because resource projects stretch over many years, covering the cost of past investments is a central issue.
The short of it was that Swan’s mining tax generated no revenue – in fact, it cost the government money in the first year – and caused extreme controversy and turmoil in the investment community. By the time it was scrapped by the Abbott Coalition government, Swan’s reputation as a money man was effectively shot.
Given Chalmers had a front-row seat to the development and fate of the tax, it’s surprising that he would embark on his own divisive tax adventure in the form of Division 296. To be sure, the idea of imposing a surcharge on large superannuation accounts is not quite as radical as a mining super-profits tax. But we should not forget the affected superannuants have amassed their large accounts using perfectly legitimate means.

Indeed, indeed, cry a river for the 85,000 or so affected, and for Dame Groan and all the AFR types sobbing into their porridge ...

At this point the reptiles interrupted with an AV distraction, featuring another cry baby, Investors Mutual co-founder Anton Tagliaferro says the Labor government’s tax on unrealised capital gains is “overly complex” and “not very fair”. The proposed changes would see individuals with super balances over $3 million pay an extra 15 per cent tax on earnings, affecting about 80,000 people or the wealthiest 0.5 per cent of Australians. “It’s obviously going to cause people to have to sell assets if they don’t have the cash because they are paying tax on an unrealised gain,” Mr Tagliaferro told Sky News Business Editor Ross Greenwood. “It’s going to cause quite a bit of turmoil and confusion.”

On with Dame Groan's patented brand of balm for the turmoiled, confused and suffering rich ...

Where Chalmers has floundered is his choice not to index the cut-off ($3m) as well as the highly contentious and unworkable decision to tax unrealised capital gains. Only allowing for unadjusted losses to be carried forward is also an issue: gosh, even under Swan’s mining tax, losses were adjusted by the long-term government bond rate.
Let’s take the first issue. The failure to index will mean more and more superannuation members will be dragged into paying higher tax, with potentially 10 per cent of all members affected into the future. In the meantime, the strong message will be conveyed to those in the accumulation phase to walk away from further investing in superannuation as far as possible.
It’s hard to see how this outcome would be welcomed by Chalmers, or the industry funds, for that matter. The “soak the rich” rationale, which is the current favoured justification of Chalmers for the new impost, will start to wear thin. The most contentious aspect of the proposal is the taxing of unrealised capital gains, meaning superannuation members will be taxed on paper profits, not actual earnings, that may never materialise. It is in fact even worse because tax may be levied on an asset that is under water. This is because the starting point is July 1, 2025, and the new tax impost ignores the purchase price of the asset.
Let’s be clear where this is really coming from. The aim is to damage the self-managed superannuation sector and to accommodate the industry funds whose IT systems have simply not been up to the task of calculating the individual tax imposts on their few members with large accounts.
The trustees of industry super funds, with their close connections to unions and hence to Labor governments, regard SMSFs as the enemy. These same trustees were able to wage an effective campaign against the retail funds, but the SMSFs have held their ground.
It is currently estimated that of the $4.2 trillion of funds in superannuation, $1.1 trillion is held in SMSFs. The handful of very large funds of more than $100m are all SMSFs and exist for historical reasons that no longer apply. Industry funds pay tax at the fund level. When asked by the naive Treasury officials undertaking the superficial consultation about implementing the tax, the simplistic response was to take the difference between the superannuation balances in two years, adjust for contributions and withdrawals, and to impose the additional 15 per cent tax on the difference in the balances above $3m.
While this might work at the level of a large industry super fund, this is simply impractical for SMSFs. Many of these funds contain lumpy, unlisted assets – farms, buildings, businesses – and there is no requirement that these assets be valued every year. At the very least, a shortage of registered valuers will make this approach unworkable.
Very strong disincentives will also be created for any further investment in unlisted assets. The requirement for liquidity to pay the additional tax will have this effect. As various industry leaders have pointed out, there will be broader damaging economic consequences, including in the green energy space. The fear that taxing unrealised gains will be extended to other areas will have a similar impact.

Speaking of fear, it's always good to remember the smirking, shameless ogre who lurks beneath the super bridge, and sends a shudder through the hive mind,  Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Picture: Martin Ollman/NewsWire

Look at him shamelessly gesturing with a cheesy grin designed to send the reptiles into a frenzy:

Dame Groan was so concerned, she even set about devising alternative ways of slugging the rich. She wanted to save Jimbo, lest he suffer from his Napoleon complex (and never mind the Mr Dick cliché, because at least he got agitated about the beheaded King Charles) ...

One further flank where Chalmers is weak relates to the tax treatment of those on defined benefits as opposed to those on defined contributions. Long-serving politicians, past and some current public servants, military personnel and some others fit into this former category.
There are also some constitutionally protected persons – judges, some state public servants and assorted others – who will never have to pay the new tax. Chalmers has meekly accepted this latter limitation. The challenge is to ensure the tax burdens between the two categories of superannuants is equivalent. While it is true that those on defined benefit pensions pay normal income tax rates with a rebate, there is no equivalent impost to the contributions and earnings taxes that most superannuants face.
For all the bluster about the Prime Minister being equally affected, this is simply not the case. The decision to use the Family Court method of calculating the implied capital base is very generous to those on defined benefits. And over time, the tax impost on those on defined benefits will fall, which contrasts with other affected superannuants. The fact is those on defined benefits stand to do very well out of the deal, which could be politically difficult.
The real tragedy is that there are alternatives to Chalmers’s new tax. For instance, he could have opted for a series of deeming rates for different classes of assets to operationalise the higher tax. He could have stuck with the current system. Chalmers can already kiss goodbye to the expected revenue as people withdraw from superannuation and seek out other tax-effective vehicles, including an upgraded family home. Virtually all those with large super accounts have passed the preservation age and can immediately withdraw funds without penalty.
My advice to Chalmers is to avoid his Waterloo. He can achieve almost everything he is aiming for without attempting to tax unrealised gains.
He should simply index the $3m figure: he might even do this in the context of initiating a broad inquiry into the taxing of savings with a view to bringing a greater degree of uniformity and rationality to the system.

Was that a sign that Dame Groan was slipping? Weakening just a little? Offering up tribute and alms? Not fancying her skills as a Duke of Wellington or a Marshal Blücher? (And never mind the cliché).

Not to worry, the pond has done its duty, has groaned along with super one more time, though it will take a major reptile star to persuade the pond to stray back on to that particular battlefield.

And so, feeling replete after this rich reptile day, the pond ends with a celebratory David Rowe, featuring a fuss which didn't make it to the top of the reptile digital edition early this day, wherein one crazy calls another crazy ...