In which the pond goes full hog into the hive mind with Barners, "Ned", Dame Slap and Dame Groan ...

 

Yesterday the pond did something of a Tootle and left the hive mind tracks, and the temptation to frolic in the field with King Donald flowers continues apace.

Who could resist a headline such as Trump Triggered Into Crazed Obama Rant by Epstein Question? (*archive link)

How tempting it would be to stray ...

King Donald was melting down in his bid to distract from the sucking machine's surprising failure.

But the pond was intrigued. 

How would the lizard Oz react to the pious petition, Australia, UK, France and other nations call for immediate end to war in Gaza ? You know, given the ongoing slaughter, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why it turns out by ignoring it altogether, leaving it to drift off into the spin dry section of ancient dusty news ...

There was also no sign of any disturbance on the extreme far right, with nattering "Ned" top of the world ma, with his endlessly tedious blathering ...

The best the pond could do was turn to the infallible Pope for a comment...

... and then proceed with reptile duties, because just above the by now standard rant about super, the reptiles led this day's digital news with ...

EXCLUSIVE
Unlikeliest of allies have knives out … for net zero
Michael McCormack has joined Barnaby Joyce’s campaign to repeal net zero, as the two former deputy prime ministers ­deliver a scathing assessment of David Littleproud.
By Greg Brown

The pond doesn't usually pay attention to reptile beat ups, but the thought of this pair of scallywags together made the pond decide to chamber the odd round ...

The header: The Odd Couple emerges as thorn in Littleproud side, Michael McCormack and Barnaby Joyce have forged an unlikely bromance that threatens the long-term future of wounded Nationals leader David Littleproud.

The caption: Nationals leader David Littleproud with Michael McCormack at the Melbourne Cup in 2023. Picture: MATRIXNEWS

The disturbing proposal: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

It was only a three minute read, so the reptiles said, and littered with links designed to keep punters inside the hive mind, but the pond always takes an interest in the cavortings of Tamworth's shame ...

Michael McCormack and Barn­aby Joyce have forged an unlikely bromance that threatens the long-term future of wounded Nationals leader David Littleproud.
After shedding years of distrust and competitive tension, the old bulls of the country party are sharpening their horns in the anti-net-zero corner of the Nationals partyroom.
The odd couple – who served as deputy prime ministers under Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison between 2016 and 2022 – came together over shared frustrations about the party’s direction under Littleproud.
Along with some Nationals MPs and supporters, they have lost faith in Littleproud’s judgment and vision. McCormack and Joyce issued sharp rebukes of Littleproud’s post-election threat to quit the Coalition and their dumping from frontbench positions. The former Nationals leaders are now joining forces in support of Joyce’s private member’s bill to repeal the net zero by 2050 target endorsed by Peter Dutton and Littleproud at the May 3 election.

The reptiles deemed the matter so important that they offered an EXPLAINER, The former political foes have joined force, Greg Brown reports.

By golly, that's an excellent snap of a leering Barners, as the mischief making continued ...

McCormack’s net-zero shift and refusal to rule out leadership ambitions is a warning sign that Littleproud faces a tough road ahead as Nationals leader in the 48th parliament.
The irony of net zero being a trigger for leadership rumblings is that McCormack was a long-time supporter of the emissions reduction target and Joyce was in charge when the original ­Coalition net-zero deal was negotiated with Morrison.
Amid pleas from city-based Liberals to shield the net-zero pledge and stare down pressure from the Nationals, McCormack’s move ramps-up pressure on Sussan Ley’s post-election review of the Coalition policy.
In the wake of Dutton’s heavy election defeat, anti-net-zero crusader Matt Canavan launched a muted contest for the Nationals leadership to ensure an internal debate was had on the future ­direction of the party.

Trust Tamworth's shame to make a mess, and give Little to be proud of grief, Mr Littleproud and Anthony Albanese arrive for the opening of the 48th parliament on Tuesday. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

How long before the reptiles manage to knock off Sussssan? 

Clearly a wet woman is no substitute for firm leadership of the onion munching kind ... or expert climate science performed by the drunken devotee of planter boxes ...

While Littleproud comfortably retained the leadership, he was sent a strong message by his partyroom about net-zero targets. Littleproud, like Nationals leaders before him including McCormack and Joyce, also used shadow ministerial appointments to protect his position.
The 48-year-old, who knocked-off Joyce for the leadership after the 2022 election, completely mismanaged the Nationals threat to quit the Coalition. Some Nationals members who supported a split believe Littleproud should have held his nerve. Those opposed believe it is impossible for Littleproud to have a close working relationship with Ley. Either way, Littleproud put himself in a position of weakness.
Another point of dispute for McCormack and Joyce is Littleproud’s suggestion that demoting them was based on “generational change” rather than locking in votes for his leadership.
McCormack, who turns 61 next Saturday, has left the door open to running again in 2028 and will not rule out a play for the Nationals leadership he lost to Joyce in 2021.
Joyce, who faced high-level pressure ahead of the last election to retire, is also open to staying in parliament longer. After two stints as leader, the 58-year-old acknowledges he can’t return to the job and is prepared to swing his rump of supporters behind McCormack.
McCormack and Joyce are not suggesting an imminent leadership spill, but their alliance is a thorn in Littleproud’s side.

A final snap, Nationals MPs Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Martin Ollman...

...and then the stirring of the pot was done...

McCormack, considered one of the most genuine blokes in Canberra who boasts friendships across the parliament, is a long-time confidant of Ley, with the pair representing the neighbouring regional NSW seats of Riverina and Farrer.
During his stint as leader between 2018 and 2021, the former newspaper editor was criticised by Nationals colleagues for not cutting through or standing up stronger to the Liberals.
Through the highs and lows of his time as deputy prime minister, McCormack has emerged as a shrewder operator.
Some in the Nationals question whether Littleproud has the burning ambition to remain as leader for the long term if he feels he can’t match McCormack and Joyce in becoming deputy prime minister.
If McCormack threw his Akubra in the ring, or acted as a stalking horse for another candidate, Littleproud could be in trouble.

Could be, would be, should be, might be? 

Come on Barners, don't just prance about like a bush ponce or Caligula's show pony, make life interesting for the reptiles.

And so to Dame Slap's outing this day ...

The header: Torres Strait result highlights court is the wrong venue for political theatre, The decision last week in the Federal Court concerning climate change in the Torres Strait was surely the high-water mark for wasting weeks of high-priced court time.

The caption: Justice Michael Wigney (top right) last week handed down his decision on the class action taken by Paul Kabai and Pabai Pabai, have instigated a climate change class action against the Commonwealth Government alleging a threat of inundation of the Torres Strait Islands. Pictures: Talei Elu/Supplied

The insistent carping: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

The pond only decided to visit Dame Slap because the mention of climate change reminded the pond of Dame Slap's once storied interest in the subject.

As a much vaunted expert climate scientist, she was routinely on hand to offer advice. Back on 18th May 2009 in a decidedly aged forum, the pond noted her review of an Ian Plimer outing ...

You don’t need a long list of degrees in science to feel that something is awry with the current climate – the climate of debate, that is. Few of us want to endanger the planet if sensible measures can be taken to avoid that. But equally, many – especially those in towns and communities where the climate change rubber will hit the road - feel disenfranchised by the current one-sided debate, derided by city folk who have made up their mind on the issue and will readily put the jobs and futures of those in the country on the line to assuage their inner city conscience. Hence, in a local pub you will find a genuine spirit of enquiry about Plimer’s work often lacking in the cities.
It is a natural part of our rich human nature to imagine the importance of man and to prefer neat answers. But much of the inner city debate is infused with a disconcerting arrogance that we understand everything, that the science of climate change is settled, that man is to blame and that man can and must fix it, regardless of the cost.

And so on, and it took the pond back to the days when Dame Slap was a devotee of Lord Monckton, and embarked on tours with the likes of Miranda Devine to denounce alarmism ...

There came a moment - much like her casting aside of Jordan Peterson - where she began to express mild doubts, with this on 20th January 2010 under the header Heated moments mar Monckton

Climate change scepticism is healthy but the advocates need to stick to facts all the same.

It was a classic gambit. Scepticism was all the go, but facts mattered to this wonderful scientist, and so she could both siderist it to death, what with her wonderfully open mind on view:

IS it too much to ask for a measured climate change debate in 2010? Looking back at 2009, it's hard to think of a more frustrating debate than the one about anthropogenic global warming.
And in between is a far larger group of people, those who are open-minded and genuinely sceptical, who are trying to understand the debate as best they can. Yet frustration only grows at the extremism on both sides.
So what will Christopher Monckton bring to this exasperating state of affairs? The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher is in Australia next week, speaking about the flaws of the push for a global solution to global warming. Last year, Monckton blew the whistle on a draft Copenhagen treaty that political leaders seemed keen to keep away from the prying eyes of taxpayers, who will fund the grand promises.
While nothing concrete came out of Copenhagen, the push for global commitments and a foreign aid bonanza continues. And in this respect, Monckton has plenty more to say. He has written to the Prime Minister outlining legitimate concerns that billions of dollars will be wasted on a problem that does not exist.
When Monckton talks about the science he is powerful. Watch on YouTube his kerb-side interview of a well-meaning Greenpeace follower on the streets of Copenhagen last month. With detailed data behind him, he asks whether she is aware that there has been no statistically significant change in temperatures for 15 years. No, she is not. Whether she is aware that there has in fact been global cooling in the past nine years? No, she is not. Whether she is aware that there has been virtually no change to the amount of sea ice? No, she does not. Whether, given her lack of knowledge about these facts, she is driven by faith, not facts. Yes, she is driven by faith, she says.
To those with an open mind, Monckton's fact-based questions demand answers from our political leaders. To this end, he will impress his Australian audience over the next few days. Unfortunately, while Monckton has mastered the best arts of persuasion, he also succumbs to the worst of them when he engages in his made-for-the-stage histrionics. In Copenhagen, when a group of young activists interrupted a meeting, he berated them as Nazis and Hitler Youth. Elsewhere he has called on people to rise up and fight off a "bureaucratic communistic world government monster". This extremist language damages his credibility. More important, it damages the debate. You start to look like a crank when you describe your opponents as Nazis and communists. You can see how it happens. Talking to a roomful of cheering fellow travellers, the temptation is to hit the high gear of hyperbole. But if your aim is to persuade those with an open mind, this kind of talk will only turn people away. Warning people about the genuine threat to national sovereignty from a centralised global-warming bureaucracy is one thing. Talking about a new front of communists marching your way is another. It sounds like an overzealous warrior fighting an old battle.
The debate about global warming is as much a political debate as it is about the science. Writing in Macleans earlier this month, Andrew Coyne highlighted the errors made by the global warmists who deride their opponents. "If your desire is to persuade the unpersuaded among the general public, the very worst way to go about it is to advertise your bottomless contempt for your adversaries. That the IPCC scientists reacted in this way shows how unprepared they were, for all their activist enthusiasm, to enter the political arena."
The great shame is that those on the other side of the debate are making precisely the same error. And that is why Monckton's fact-based concerns are left unaddressed by our political leaders. They have sidelined him from debate. Kevin Rudd has not responded to his letter. Tony Abbott will not meet him. Neither should he. There is no political gain for the Opposition Leader in doing so.
And the reason is clear enough. Inflationary language deflates an argument. Moreover, Monckton is making the worst political error at the worst possible time, right when this debate is slipping from the control of those determined to punish countries for their carbon emissions. Even The Guardian's resident alarmist George Monbiot admitted last November, "There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease."
It's neither denial nor a disease, of course. Just healthy scepticism. And it's growing in all the right directions for all the right reasons. Scepticism about the science: the revelation that scientists massaged data to suit their case has damaged the public's trust in the scientific community. Scepticism about the costs: after Copenhagen, we now know more about the grab for a new gravy train of foreign aid from developed nations set to flow to developing countries under the cloak of climate change. Scepticism about the government: the Rudd government will come under increased pressure to explain its rush to implement an emissions trading system ahead of the rest of the world. And scepticism about the role of a campaigning media: even the BBC Trust has called for a review of the BBC's cheerleading coverage of climate change. What took it so long? Large sections of the Australian media are no less complicit in the same kind of climate change advocacy.

In 2010, healthy scepticism will continue to rise against the global warming alarmists. But only if those such as Monckton treat the public with respect by sticking to the facts and using measured language, not fanciful claims and name-calling.
One side says the science is settled and will not countenance dissent. Within that group sit the alarmists who preach death and destruction, those who define humanity as the problem and those who have long harboured an ideological grudge against Western progress. Those on the other side of the debate say man-made global warming is all bunkum. Though they describe themselves as sceptics, for many of them the science is equally settled: in their favour.

Golly, that was a long detour, but it helps set the scene for this day's dismissal of matters before the court ...

When are we going to call time on the use of the courts, especially the Federal Court, for performative politicking?

The decision last week of Justice Michael Wigney in the Federal Court concerning climate change in the Torres Strait was surely the high-water mark for wasting weeks of high-priced court time, months of work by tribes of expensive barristers and solicitors, and over 1000 paragraphs of judgment on what was essentially a hopeless case.

No doubt the aggrieved plaintiffs, Pabai Pabai and Guy Kabai, two Torres Strait Islander elders, received some satisfaction from their day in court, and the environmental bar made out like bandits. But this case should never have been brought, or at minimum should never have made it past first base.

Taxpayers are entitled to ask whether the vast amounts of time and money spent on this case would have been better spent on infrastructure or health needs in the Torres Strait.

To nobody’s surprise, the only beneficiaries from this court theatre were Chris Bowen and his fellow climate crusaders in the Albanese government who achieved a purely symbolic but high-profile, court-ordered caning of previous Coalition governments.

The learned judge scored a snap, Justice Michael Wigney

... while Dame Slap maintained her rage ...

Adoring reports in the left-wing media described how the judge found that when the Coalition government “identified and set Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in 2015, 2020 and 2021, it failed to engage with or give any real or genuine consideration to what the best available science indicated was required for Australia to play its part in the global effort to moderate or reduce climate change and its impacts”, but this all changed when the government changed in 2022.
This was pro-ALP publicity the government would have regarded as well worth the cost of the case.
What the media reports did not give as much airplay to were the judge’s findings that the case, in which the Torres Strait Islanders alleged the commonwealth was negligent in failing to set and implement appropriate climate targets, failed at every step.
The court found that the applicants “failed to prove any of the essential elements of their case”. They failed to prove the commonwealth owed a duty of care to the islanders, failed to prove that even if the commonwealth was subject to a duty of care that the standard of care was as claimed by the plaintiffs and failed to prove a compensable loss. In other words, a resounding defeat.
It should have been obvious to everyone involved that once the Full Court of the Federal Court had decided Sharma – an earlier case in which a claim that the commonwealth owed a duty of care to prevent or mitigate the effects of climate change was thrown out – the Torres Strait Islands case was a loser.

Speaking of losers, inevitably the reptiles featured the beast of darkness, Chris Bowen

Dame Slap was in her legal element, and actual maters of science could be safely put aside ...

Both in Sharma and the Torres Strait Islands case the court held the law of negligence was not appropriate to test the reasonableness of matters of government policy.

The leading commentary on this issue was the following statement (quoted by Justice Wigney) from High Court chief justice Murray Gleeson in the Graham Barclay Oysters case: “At the centre of the law of negligence is the concept of reasonableness.

“When courts are invited to pass judgment on the reasonableness of governmental action or inaction, they may be confronted by issues that are inappropriate for judicial resolution, and that, in a representative democracy, are ordinarily decided through the political process. Especially is this so when criticism is addressed to legislative action or inaction.

“Many citizens may believe that, in various matters, there should be more extensive government regulation. Others may be of a different view, for any one of a number of reasons, perhaps including cost.

“Courts have long recognised the inappropriateness of judicial resolution of complaints about the reasonableness of governmental conduct where such complaints are political in nature.”

One may well wonder why Justice Wigney continued past this finding.

The charitable answer seems to be judicial prudence. On a number of occasions when Justice Wigney reached one of the many points at which his reasoning would have ended the applicants’ case, he would continue to make findings in case his judgment was appealed.

Justice Wigney concluded by saying the applicants’ case failed “not so much because there was no merit in their factual allegations” but “because the law in Australia as it currently stands provides no real or effective avenue through which the applicants were able to pursue their claims”. He continued that “until the law in Australia changes, either by the incremental development or expansion of the common law by appellate courts by the enactment of legislation”, the “only recourse that those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders have is recourse via the ballot box”.

Fans of democracy would say thank God for that. The idea that climate change policy should be determined by judges – even those clever judges in appellate courts – would fill most of us with horror. Look at what a mess judges have made of migration law, not just here but all around the world. At least when politicians get it wrong, we can elect new ones to fix things.

But judges are appointed for life, or at least for fixed terms, and their judgments create permanent precedents which, as cases such as NZYQ show, can be virtually immune to the wishes of the electorate.

The hapless complainants were also given a visual mention, Paul Kabai and Pabai Pabai.

Then Dame Slap moved to have the matter stricken from the record ...

The real wonder of this case is that Justice Wigney took the bait to make a vast array of momentous factual findings in a case whose legal prospects were so dim. Making his decision appeal-proof seems a slight foundation on which to base such a hard-hitting attack on Coalition policy.

True it is that he is bound by the submissions made to him, and that both the commonwealth’s lawyers (now instructed by an ALP government) and the applicants’ lawyers were urging him to find, as he did, that “climate change poses an existential threat to the whole of humanity”.

However, it was not just the lawyers for both sides who were nodding ferociously at the concessions made by the commonwealth. After listing the comprehensive concessions made by the commonwealth, Justice Wigney added “the commonwealth was correct to make those concessions”.

Leaving little doubt where he stood on climate-related matters, the judge said the “science of climate change is now broadly accepted and doubted by only those on the very fringes of political and scientific debate”.

Now, maybe the judge is right, but is this really the best use of the Federal Court’s time? Even hopeless cases deserve access to justice, but was this case the right vehicle for both sides and the judge to sit around agreeing ferociously with each other’s submissions, only to culminate in the judge offering trenchant criticism of Coalition climate policies while giving the current government a tick?

Cynics may worry this looks like an expensive stitch-up.

Admittedly, it's not Dame Slap denialism at her finest. Those days are long gone, but still, there were echoes of past glories.

As for actual climate science, rising seas, the increase in disasters, the inability to insure? Never you mind, there's no way Dame Slap could tolerate that outrageous slur ...

...the judge said the “science of climate change is now broadly accepted and doubted by only those on the very fringes of political and scientific debate”.

The learned judge needs to spend more time in the very fringes of the reptile mind, though perhaps he should be spared a plunge into Dame Slap's history and Barners' brain.

And so eventually to "Ned" ...

The header: New ideas, not Labor orthodoxy, are the key to PM’s success, Labor’s 2025 election mandate cannot do the policy job for Australia. More of the same won’t work. Entrenched ALP policy attitudes cannot tackle the source of Australia’s long underperformance.

The caption: Anthony Albanese attends a smoking ceremony to start the 48th Parliament at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The magickal incantation: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

The thought of enduring an interminable "Ned" Everest natter almost made the pond bolt for the door ... so many other matters to discuss ...

... but Western Civilisation in all its glory would have to wait as "Ned" laboriously cranked into gear ...

Here the pond must voice mild dissent and concern and growing irritation.

The pond is constantly worn out by pundits insisting that governments must do this or must do that, and follow the pundit's proposals or else the apocalypse will follow.

Just getting by without the wheels falling off completely is never good enough ... and so politicians are expected to listen to windy "Ned" sounding off like an ancient rogue whale ...

The grand Labor ascendancy begins this week with the sittings of the new parliament. The size of Anthony Albanese’s majority surely means a Labor government for the next six years – and that may not be its limit. This is an occasion of Labor triumph but, equally, of Labor challenge.

It will become a time of historic definition for Labor. Its true character, beliefs and relevance in the 21st century will be revealed, precisely because Labor has a commanding position of power unrivalled since John Howard’s 2004 victory.

In politics, victory creates expectations. And big victories create big expectations. This mood is accentuated today given Australia’s underperformance for so long with living standards stagnant, business investment weak and a public stuck in a mood of resentment and frustration.

The first big lesson from Albanese’s May 2025 election victory is that his second-term performance must exceed his first-term performance. If that is not realised, the second term will be deemed a failure. Albanese, his cabinet and the Labor Party are on notice. This looms as the most important moment for ALP governance since the Hawke-Keating era that began 42 years ago. Such opportunities for Labor typically come around only in each half century.

What mindless stupidity is this?

big victories create big expectations

Big victories create expectations of rifts, dissents, factions, cabals, rats in the ranks, and attempts to corral an unruly majority, as the reptiles flung in a snap, Anthony Albanese signs the affirmation of allegiance in Parliament House.

"Ned" continued on in his white-anting way ...

This judgment derives from the clear political landscape Labor faces. In the new 48th parliament, Labor commands the Coalition 94-43 seats in the House of Representatives – a larger majority than Tony Abbott enjoyed in 2013 – while in the Senate Labor can form a majority relying on the Greens or the Coalition, a highly favourable situation.

No government for 20 years has faced such exceptional opportunities for executive and parliamentary action.

The 2025 election broke the cycle of narrow election victories that plagued Australia for the past decade. This was the decade of miserable equivocation by the public. Each of the previous three elections – Malcolm Turnbull’s 2016 win, Scott Morrison’s 2019 win and Albanese’s 2022 win – saw governments fall over the line with perilously narrow majorities and unconvincing mandates. Weak majorities necessitated caution and complicated political management.

Albanese has broken free. The victory over the Coalition in 2025 has been astonishing, given that a week before the election Newspoll said only 39 per cent of people believed the government deserved to be re-elected. But when the crunch came, the public had far more reservations about Peter Dutton than Albanese. The widespread 2024 expectation of a minority Labor government was dissolved.

Albanese believes the keys to his success lie in the stability, discipline and delivery of his first term – neither transformational policy nor path-breaking innovation. He got close to the people, offering practical gains. It’s a long list – lower interest rates, real wage gains, increases in the minimum wage, support for Medicare, boosting paid parental leave, energy bill relief, more funds into the care economy, cutting student debt, better childcare and backing renewable energy.

The paradox of Albanese is on display – he is a big winner who likes to play down expectations, the reverse of Gough Whitlam. “Let’s not get ahead of ourselves” is his constant refrain, exceeded only by his mantra “no one left behind, no one held back”. The spin is non-ideological, down-to-earth. He likes to be Mr Practical.

The trap for Albanese is that his victory is wide but not deep – based on preferences, not primary votes, where Labor polled a still dismal 34.56 per cent. Australia is a more fractured nation and that makes politics more volatile. It means Labor’s executive flaws and any policy mediocrity will be ruthlessly exposed.

The second big message is that Labor’s 2025 election mandate cannot do the policy job for Australia. More of the same won’t work. The Labor orthodoxy – state paternalism; bigger, more interventionist government; more red and green tape; more pro-trade union IR laws; tinkering around tax reform; bigger and expensive social agendas, witness universal childcare in the wake of the NDIS; ongoing energy price escalation; scepticism about markets and lip-service towards the lack of private sector investment confidence – all constitute entrenched ALP policy attitudes that cannot tackle the source of Australia’s long underperformance.

Always the harping and the carping, Anthony Albanese and the Treasurer Jim Chalmers visit Sunnybank Market Square in the electorate of Moreton.

What a pity "Ned" didn't have a Golding to help him ...

On and on "Ned" meandered, forming his very own conga line ...

That Albanese and Jim Chalmers have committed to an economic roundtable – designed to produce new ideas – testifies to the defining reality. The Treasurer has put on the table our long-stagnant productivity failures and the need for budget repair, the assumption being that fresh policy approaches are needed and welcome.

There is a conga line of experts, institutions and officials calling for action – from former Treasury boss Ken Henry to the Commonwealth Bank, to Productivity Commission chairwoman Danielle Wood, with Chalmers hoping the roundtable makes a “big contribution” to the future of economic reform. Everyone will look for policies that inspire consensus – but consensus is a rare commodity these days. If Labor decides to be strictly limited to consensus, it is destined to disappoint.

This penetrates to the third big lesson from the Labor ascendancy – ultimately the government must lead. There is no other option. The Albanese government must decide how it intends to lead, how it intends to reinvent Labor faiths and policies for a new phase of history. This won’t be easy, given the last PM who tried bold reform was Abbott in 2014 and ended up losing his job. Yet Albanese is a conscript of the times; his responsibility is to address the nation’s challenges.

The story of Labor’s governing success, whether John Curtin, Whitlam, Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, has been the ability of such leaders to reach outside the Labor orthodoxy, to break free of the standard Labor dogma, to find fresh policies and strike a new synthesis – initially resisted within the party – that both advanced the national interest yet still honoured Labor values.

Can Albanese Labor rise to the occasion? Albanese’s fate at the opening of the new parliament is to lead a different Labor Party. The left is now the majority force in the caucus and in the party rank and file, a major historical departure. In a sense Albanese recognises this with his recent phrase “progressive patriotism” – the progressive in deference to the majority ideology of the party these days but the patriotic testifying to his desire to govern for the entire country.

Is there an upside? Punters were offered only a snap of Bob Hawke, and the bizarre notion that John Curtin was a governing success, thereby ignoring entirely what our Henry had written about the man (and perhaps more of that this Friday).

"Ned" then designed a series of tests any government would easily fail ...

A great Labor experiment is about to unfold. Put brutally: does an ascendant centre-left Labor government possess the will and ability to fashion a new reform model tapping into the advantages of AI, easing the income tax burden on individuals, navigating the restructuring of the energy sector, delivering a more competitive, flexible and productive economy, securing a more sustainable budget and imposing limits on big spending social policies?

That’s the task. Sustainable gains in living standards can’t be confected. The ascendant Labor Party arrives at a time of immense national challenge. It is the beneficiary of Albanese’s brilliantly successful political strategy from his first term – but having won the politics, the question now being asked of Labor is the quality of its governance.

There will be a temptation to dodge the hard truths. After all, with the Coalition depleted and near broken, a second term of safe politics, cautious policy and incremental delivery of benefits should be enough to secure Labor’s third term. But that temptation should be resisted. It won’t be enough for Australia or be enough to terminate our cycle of underperformance.

Labor needs a new economic growth strategy. A post-inflation boost won’t do the job. Nor will reliance on public sector activism. Pivotal to Labor’s second term agenda will be whether Chalmers emerges as a Treasurer of authority and whether Albanese and Chalmers can agree on a dynamic agenda. That’s always the question for Labor governments; it’s the test Labor sets for itself. It’s the test the nation will impose on Albanese Labor.

Put brutally, this is what the bleat was really all about ...

And so to Dame Groan ...

The header: Why centre-based childcare fails our young kids, What if it turns out that long daycare is actually harmful to many children and that the consequences will play out for the rest of their lives?

The caption: Parents need real choices for childcare, including the option to be subsidised to stay home, says Judith Sloan. Pictures: iStock

The proposal best ignored: This article contains features which are only available in the web version, Take me there

The pond almost didn't bother with this day's groaning, but appreciates that the old biddy has a dedicated following amongst pond correspondents.

The pond has no dog in this game, or even a child, and there was something deeply disturbing about that photo ...

Eek ...it was a twofer ...

Yes, we'd been there before, just a week ago, with the reptiles phoning in their illustration and Dame Groan phoning in her copy ...

And now they were at it again.

There's only so much repetition the pond can bear, especially the hive mind kind, so the pond decided just to get it over with ...

It’s a well-worn cliche: our children are the future. But when it comes to young children in childcare, the effects on those children are often ignored or are (mis) portrayed as overwhelmingly positive. In any case, the central concerns of studies are the impact on mothers and the boost to the economy.

What if it turns out that long daycare is actually harmful to many children and that the consequences will play out for the rest of their lives?

Can the case be made that falling school performance and the rising participation of young children in the National Disability Insurance Scheme are partly related to long hours in centre-based childcare from an early age?

The advocates and beneficiaries of the childcare industry, no doubt, would bristle at the suggestion that childcare could damage our young ones. We need only to see how the federal Department of Education portrays the industry, preferring the term early childhood education and care.

According to the blurb, “ECEC benefits children, families and the Australian economy. Quality ECEC lays the foundation for lifelong development and learning (and) leads to better health, education and employment outcomes later in life … Access to affordable ECEC means parents and carers can work, train, study and volunteer. This in turn boosts the Australian economy.”

Take it from me, all these sentences are mere assertions unrelated to any serious research findings.

The reptiles decided to trot out petulant Peta, thereby confirming there was nothing here for the pond, Sky News host Peta Credlin discusses the childcare worker who allegedly raped several children in Melbourne and the subsequent government response. “Today, it emerged that there’s been a further four Melbourne childcare centres, where this alleged child rapist, this alleged pedophile, has worked,” Ms Credlin said. “Why was this alleged monster's employment history not known straight away when the charges were first laid a couple of weeks ago, so that at least all the affected families could know straight away, rather than having this drawn out and traumatic news go on for weeks? “Just words and no comfort.”

Correspondents might want to quibble, but the pond just wanted it done ...

In fact, most of the so-called research in this area is extremely poor quality, lacking proper control groups and failing to account for the many reasons some children thrive, and others don’t.

It often combines large age ranges – zero to five – where common sense tells us that the impact on babies and toddlers is likely to be very different from that on preschool children aged three and four. It’s simply advocacy to support the case for more government spending on subsidising childcare fees.

It’s why the Quebec studies have been so consequential because they use high-quality data and the most sophisticated estimation techniques.

Between 1997 and 2000, Quebec rolled out a program that offered universal flat-fee childcare to all children in the province. This led to a rapid expansion in the provision of childcare. Studies comparing the outcomes of children in Quebec with those in the rest of Canada have established some alarming outcomes. The social development of children in Quebec deteriorated. Comparing the children aged two to four who had been part of the program with their older siblings who had not revealed a greater prevalence of anxiety, hyperactivity and aggression in the former group.

The gold-standard study in this area was authored by Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber and Kevin Milligan and appeared in the American Economic Journal in 2019. Their conclusion was “the Quebec policy had a lasting negative impact on non-cognitive skills. At older ages, program exposure is associated with worsened health and life satisfaction, and increased rates of criminal activity … In contrast, we find no consistent impact on their cognitive skills.”

One reason given for these disturbing findings is that the rapid rollout of the program led to a marked deterioration in the quality of childcare offerings. In fact, the most common term used in the advocacy literature is quality: the concession is made that it is only quality childcare that has beneficial effects.

Cue an interrupting snap, Jason Clare: Minister for Housing; Minister for Homelessness; Minister for Small Business Picture: Jason Edwards / NewsWire

Dame Groan kept picking fights with people on matters of absolutely no interest to the pond ...

Brown University economics professor Emily Oster, a strident advocate of centre-based childcare, readily admits that quality matters. But her definition of quality varies from others. According to her, quality should be “measured by whether providers are responsive to children, whether they read and talk to them, whether they hit them (this is very bad) and whether they respond to their basic needs like diapering and feeding”.

But there are other definitions of quality. Features of the premises, staff-to-children ratios and the qualifications of staff often are listed. Sensitive and positive caregiving also is mentioned.

The government regulations focus on the measurable, even if they may be poor indicators of real quality. Note here that there are a disproportionate number of recently arrived migrants working in our childcare industry. With limited English, it’s hard to see how much reading and talking goes on.

It is also entirely possible that what is quality for one child is not quality for another. And what is quality for a one-year-old is different from a child aged 4½. The international literature is also clear that places at high-quality centres tend to be taken by the parents with higher incomes. This leads to a confounding of the correlation between outcomes for children and attendance at childcare: it’s not the impact of childcare but the fact these children would always have done better in the absence of childcare attendance.

Centre-based childcare remains in the news for all the wrong reasons, with more instances emerging of children being mistreated by childcare workers. There have been various kneejerk reactions by the federal and state governments, including the completely predictable review in Victoria headed by former South Australian Labor premier Jay Weatherill.

Given his role at Minderoo Foundation’s early childhood development arm, Thrive by Five, arguably Weatherill is not an appropriate person to conduct the inquiry given the potential for a conflict of interest as well as strong preconceived views. But Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan no doubt sees the issue differently.

No doubt some see things differently to Dame Groan, but it turns out that the reptiles are on a holy crusade, Sky News host James Macpherson discusses calls to create a national working with children register in Australia. “There are calls for a national working with children register to be established as a matter of priority when Parliament returns this week. This is a campaign led by News Corp - called the 'Keep them Safe campaign',” Mr Macpherson told Sky News Australia. “A national register of childcare workers makes sense, the fact that it was recommended seven years ago and still hasn’t happened is a blight on the parliament, get it done in this sitting.”

That was a sign for this day's groaning to wrap up ...

Federal Education Minister Jason Clare has been active, at least in terms of statements. There is talk of speeding up a national register of childcare workers.

It’s not clear what real information is gleaned from viewing the work history of childcare workers, but the government will get some comfort from being seen to doing something.

There is a proposal, to be backed by legislation, of the withdrawal of federal funding where centres fail to meet stipulated quality standards after a warning is given. More than 10 per cent of centres are currently failing minimum standards, although this is sometimes because of a failure to engage a university-qualified preschool teacher for a minimum of 10 hours a week.

Whether the government would actually take this drastic action and deprive parents of childcare places required for them to continue in their jobs is unclear.

It can become a major issue in small communities where there may be only one childcare centre/preschool. Focusing on the qualifications of the staff looks like a lost opportunity when considerations related to child safety are much more pressing.

The emergence of some of these problems in the childcare industry may prove to be timely given the Prime Minister’s commitment to a flat low-fee universal childcare model. Apart from the ruinous expense to the taxpayer of going down this route, too many children may end up adversely affected.

If children really are our future, we need to offer them the best start possible.

The pond has done its duty by its correspondents and no more can be done. 

The pond has only one suggestion to improve life for toddlers.

Let there be a copy of the lizard Oz be provided free for every child care centre ...

And so to wrap up the day with a Wilcox ...