In which the pond has splendid news: the bromancer is back and is feuding with ancient Troy, and despite the lettuce feeling strong, the pond still finds room for Dame Groan being rooned yet again ...

 

At last the bromancer has returned and the pond is back in business ...

What a bumper book for boys and girls this day brings...

The excess of pleasure means the pond can consign the dog botherer, doing yet another ABC beat up, to the archives (yes, the pond was first to save it, guilty as charged, given perdition would be a more appropriate fate)...

A simple case to outline: the ABC’s dodgy Trump reporting is indefensible, The effort by MediaWatch host Linton Besser and 7.30 host Sarah Ferguson to defend the ABC over Four Corners’ deceptive Donald Trump editing are as ethically challenged and intellectually barren as the original sin.
By Chris Kenny
Associate Editor (National Affairs)

For the dog botherer to blather about "ethically challenged" and "intellectually barren" in the context of King Donald is beyond the valley of the ineffectually risible ...

And it's off to the archive with Lily too ...

This newest angle on an ancient jihad is as tedious as that never ending jihad about the Lehrmann case once was, though strangely Dame Slap wasn't on the latest iteration ...

Rulings
PM’s suspicious characterisation: Albanese refuses to face Higgins music
Anthony Albanese has rejected two court rulings that found Brittany Higgins’ claims of a political cover-up were untrue.
By Lily McCaffrey

Get a life Lily, do you really want to be the Dame Slap of the Melbourne bureau? Off to the archive with thee ...

Meanwhile, the reptiles keep prodding at Susssan, doing their best they can for the lettuce's cause...

Resolute’ Sussan Ley digging in as sharks circle
Sussan Ley is digging in amid a growing expectation her leadership is terminal and divisions within the moderate faction over her future.
By Greg Brown

The only notable feature of the Brown out yarn? 

The way a splendid chance to feature Jaws imagery went missing.

If the sharks are circling, why no up angle of the swimmer in peril, perhaps with John Williams thundering away?

Instead there was a splendid opening shot of action figure can do Susssan in action ... alas, with the Bolter to hand to blather about her chances, as if the Bolter could stand any form of hapless harridan at any time ...

But enough already of these early morning pleasantries, it's time for a hearty breakfast of climate science denialism, served up by an expert whose main qualification is expertise in trinitarianism and transubstantiation ...

The header: Why the world is moving away from net zero and the Coalition is right, Higher prices, higher unemployment, industry deserting Australia … the Opposition can win this debate but it has to campaign hard and negative to make reality figure in Australia’s energy debate.

The caption for the splendid snap showing Sussan with Dan the man, presumably just before or after can do action figure Susssan sprang into handy person action: Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and energy spokesman Dan Tehan with Lucas Staton and Gareth Jones on a visit to Emu Plains engineering business Marley Flow Control. Picture: NewsWire / Max Mason-Hubers

There's no need for the pond to argue, interrogate or debate the bromancer.

It's more than enough just to wallow in a good five minutes of bromancer fatuities, as a way of setting up ancient Troy for a rebuttal ...

The Liberal and National parties’ new climate policy – repudiating net zero as a target – is much more in tune with international reality than the Albanese government. The government’s net zero commitment is a fantasy policy built on wildly unrealistic assumptions and forecasts.
The Coalition’s new policy reflects what’s happening overseas. But over many years, Labor has constructed so many taxpayer-funded institutions, whose primary purpose is to cheer on maximum climate change action, that it’s difficult for Australia to have a sensible debate.
Far from reigniting some destructive climate war, the Coalition is attempting to reconnect the national debate with reality. In this it may succeed or fail. But the world is moving away from net zero, as the Coalition rightly wants to do. The world is not moving away from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So the Coalition’s nuanced position – reduce emissions, but not by the extreme measures implied in net zero – is sensible in itself and what comparable countries are trying.
I first wrote seriously about climate change during the Gillard government. As foreign editor spending much of my time in Asia, I could see that the government’s propaganda – that the world was abolishing fossil fuels and imposing carbon taxes – was baloney as far as Asia was concerned.
Yet because there is so little investigation of primary sources in Australian commentary, and Labor has bamboozled the debate with all its pro-government expert bodies and an ideologically committed ABC, it’s very hard for elementary facts to penetrate the Australian debate.
Don’t take my word that the world is moving away from net zero. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the COP meeting in Brazil recently that global consensus on climate change action had collapsed. He’s half right. There never really was a global consensus. The International Energy Agency recently released its World Energy Outlook 2024. Last year, like all recent years except during Covid, total global greenhouse gas emissions rose, to a record 38 gigatonnes.

The reptiles struck just the right note for the bromancer, The world, so far, is not seeing the substitution of intermittent renewable energy for fossil fuels, but the addition of vast amounts of renewables to fossil fuels.

Um, isn't that a terrifying snap of a world being polluted and ruined, a sullen sun casting a ghastly glow on the clouds?

Couldn't they have offered the sort of visually stimulating, social media aware, teen friendly, astonishingly intellectual insights being peddled by the pastie Hastie?

What a giant, how fitting for the gargantuan bromancer to keep the company of such giants ...

Nothing is more misleading in the whole energy debate than unrealistic modelling based on ropey assumptions. One of the most common and intellectually debilitating tricks is to assume the world, or a given nation, reaches net zero by 2050 and then model all policy as if it has to lead to that outcome. The IEA uses various scenarios for modelling. The only one that counts is based on actual current practices. Under that scenario it sees no decline in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
It reports coal remaining a key global energy source for many decades while gas is absolutely booming. Last year the world derived more energy from coal than ever before in the history of the human race. Yet how often have you heard on the ABC, or from government figures, that the world is “decarbonising” or “transitioning”, meaning that it’s moving decisively away from fossil fuels.
The world, so far, is not seeing the substitution of intermittent renewable energy for fossil fuels, but the addition of vast amounts of renewables to fossil fuels.
In coming decades the world is going to need vastly more energy than it has ever needed before. There are billions of people to move out of poverty into middle-income status at least. That means billions of people going from low energy use to middle energy use at least.
As everyone outside of official Australia knows, fossil fuels provide cheaper energy than renewables do. Billions of people in India, Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East, as well as still a large number in China and Latin America, will carbonise before they may decarbonise a long way down the track.
From a different point in the ideological spectrum, the Climate Action Tracker website recently commented that there has been “little or no progress in warming projections”.
A couple of months ago the Economist magazine, the high sacramental organ of liberal internationalism, ran a seminal cover story and a series of analytical pieces urging the world to drop the net zero slogan, because it has absolutely no chance of being achieved and substitutes flim-flam for substance in policy debate.

Inevitably the villains hovered into view, sinister and grimacing, crestfallen and ashamed, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen. Picture: AAP

Haven't we seen that snap already pounded to death by the reptiles?

Never mind, the bromancer was in full featherless flight ...

Countries notionally committed to net zero have no intention of achieving it. Now, a policy or an analysis is not necessarily right because the Economist says so. But no one, not even the Olympian intellects of the Albanese government, could call the Economist unsophisticated, in denial about the science or a mouthpiece for the far right or fringe political forces.
Yet, in essence, the Economist’s position is the same as that of the Coalition. There should be a genuine effort to reduce greenhouse emissions, but net zero is neither achievable nor helpful.
Net zero is of course an entirely fraudulent concept; the idea that modern society can flourish without adding, net, a single zot of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s ludicrous.
How will aviation work in a net-zero world? Will all the planes be built from green steel? Will the planes all use biofuel? In which case we’ll need a few extra planets to grow all the biomass. How will agriculture work in net zero? Electric vehicles are much heavier than regular vehicles. You can’t have an electric tractor. Nor can cattle be persuaded never to break wind.
While net zero is demonstrable nonsense, the ambition to reach lower levels of carbon emissions is sensible enough.
The Coalition is being lampooned for contemplating the possibility of more coal-fired power stations. According to the IEA, global consumption of coal has doubled in the past three decades. In 2024 China used almost five billion tonnes of coal out of the nearly nine billion tonnes used globally. Coal use will expand not only in China but in India, Southeast Asia, Africa and some other parts of the world.

Lampooned?

Oh surely not. 

The pond just loved this sort of word salad, spotted in another place, featuring Little to be Proud of in finest form ...

Littleproud says Coalition’s position not contesting climate science
By Emily Kaine
Nationals leader David Littleproud has insisted this morning that the Coalition’s new energy policy is not anti-science, but is focused on affordability as its main priority.
“No one’s contesting the science. What we’re contesting is the economics and about how we do that, how we live up to our international commitments, make sure we do our fair share, but make sure that it’s affordable for Australians in energy,” Littleproud told ABC’s News Breakfast program.
“We believe there is an alternative way to reduce emissions than net zero.”
Pressed on how the Coalition can reconcile stepping away from its commitment to net zero emissions targets by 2050 with the decision to stay in the Paris Agreement, Littleproud said:
“What Paris is, is the world saying that we’re going to make a unified commitment to try and reduce emissions... There is no punitive penalty for not meeting Paris.
“So the reality is, Paris is simply the world coming together and saying, let’s have an ideological view to try and reduce emissions,” he told Sky News today

The pond is humbled by being in the company of such intellectual giants ...as the reptiles offered up another snap of that deviant dumbo, Chris Bowen during question time at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The bromancer then wrapped up his outing ...

Australia still gets the majority of its energy from coal. Hi-tech modern countries such as Japan and South Korea build coal-fired power stations and Germany put mothballed stations back to work. The IEA reports on a big expansion in nuclear energy – all these world governments apparently not listening to Albanese ministers routinely ridiculing nuclear power in question time.
The modelling that informs much Australian debate is exceptionally ropey and unreliable but all modelling is very limited. The growth of AI and data centres means the demand for electricity will rise massively. Economic models even of a few years ago did not anticipate this. Similarly, the idea that electric vehicles can simply replace all or most conventional vehicles will run up against the simple physical constraint that there just aren’t enough critical minerals in the world for this to happen.
The information is all there for the Coalition to win this debate. It will need to run very negative, along the lines of: Labor’s net zero means higher prices, higher unemployment, industry deserting Australia, and so on.
The Coalition, in abandoning net zero, gives itself two possible futures: political oblivion, or winning a central policy debate. To win that debate it needs relentless campaigning energy and all its senior people across all the information all the time. At least now there’s an outside chance that reality will figure in the Australian energy debate.

Awesome stuff, truly hip, with this found in that other place ...

‘Right thing to do for next generation’: Ley says Zoomers won’t abandon Coalition over net zero
By Nick Newling
The Coalition’s energy and climate policies, including the abandonment of net zero, will not negatively impact their popularity among Gen Z and Millennial voters, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has claimed.
“I strenuously disagree with the suggestion that this is going to, as you say, ‘blow up’ chances with Gen Z and Millennial, and it’s actually not about votes or the next election,” Ley told Triple J this afternoon. “It’s about the right thing to do for the next generation. For me, because I feel that Gen Zs and Millennials are a disenfranchised generation, and I know that they do care – in fact, not just them, all Australians – for their country, their environment and emissions reduction matters a great deal, and it matters to me.”
Ley said the Coalition’s policy was focused on “sensible and responsible” modes of emissions reductions, while attempting to lower energy prices. “We’re here for the next generation and for their standard of living, and we’re also here to take the action that we responsibly should in this country with respect to climate and emissions.”

It's well worth celebrating with a held over cartoon by the infallible Pope ...

For some reason the reptiles decided to rain on the bromancer's parade with an ancient Troy outing. 

Who knows why, perhaps they think reptile columnists gouging at each other amounts to some kind of Lord of the Flies contest ...

The header: Liberal Party’s climate retreat likely equals net zero seat gain at next election, The Coalition’s climate and energy policy backflip will do nothing to help it win back teal seats needed to win government.

The caption for hapless downcast Susssan and quizzical Dan the man: Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and energy spokesman Dan Tehan. By giving a free hand to the partyroom to determine policy, Ley ceded her authority. Picture: NewsWire / Max Mason-Hubers

Ancient Troy spent a goodly five minutes spraying carbon dioxide all over the bromancer to put out the fire.

All the pond had to do was sit back and enjoy the spectacle:

The Liberal Party’s contortions, contradictions and incoherence over climate change and energy policy demonstrate not only its deep internal divisions and weak leadership, but that it has no viable strategy to return to government.
The entry price for policy credibility and political relevance is a belief that climate change is real and that policies are needed to decarbonise the economy. Without this elemental recognition and response, Liberal seats will likely continue to fall to Labor, Greens and teals.
The Liberal Party has abandoned a commitment to the goal of net zero emissions by 2050. Yet this was the policy, developed by Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg, and endorsed by Peter Dutton, that the party took to the last two elections. Did the party not believe it then or does it not believe it now?
Sussan Ley, Ted O’Brien and Angus Taylor told us they fully supported the goal of net zero emissions by 2050. They advocated and defended this goal – of which the global Paris Agreement is built around – again and again, including at the time of the last election – just six months ago. Have they no policy consistency? No bedrock of belief? No enduring values?
Morrison said net zero by 2050 was essential for Australia’s future and deftly manoeuvred the Coalition to support it, seemingly ending the climate wars that had dogged his party for more than a decade; Frydenberg strongly and persuasively warned of sovereign risk, and lost investment and trade deals for Australia, if not adopted. Are these arguments suddenly no longer valid?

It's back to the future with SloMo, the liar from the Shire?

Then came a man with Little to be Proud of, Ahead of the election, David Littleproud told Troy Bramston he supported net zero by 2050. Picture: NewsWire / Damian Shaw

Ancient Troy was starting to sound like he wanted a gig in another place, the sort of place that ran this sort of story ...

Sussan Ley, the travelling saleswoman, is spruiking Hastie’s wares
By Nick Bonyhady
2GB host Ben Fordham didn’t declare open season on Opposition Leader Sussan Ley. He didn’t have to. The run of callers his producers lined up to declare their preference for backbencher Andrew Hastie, her undeclared challenger, did all the talking.
Asked who she preferred as leader, Pattie said: “Certainly Andrew, definitely not Sussan.” No coincidence that Sheena, Narelle, Dominic and Simone all said the same.
Ley insisted she was unbothered by the stunt on a radio station that conservative leaders tend to favour, and was focused instead on real Australian concerns.
“We had a leadership ballot in the Liberal Party room six months ago,” Ley told Fordham. “I’m the leader and I’m working hard every day to deliver a serious, compelling policy agenda.”
It was the same message she delivered on ABC breakfast radio, Channel Seven breakfast television, and doubtless much the same as the one she will tell youth outlet The Daily Aus and triple j’s Hack program later in the day in a media sales blitz spanning the ideological spectrum.
On Sunrise she insisted too many migrants were coming to Australia but wouldn’t provide her own ideal figure. “Well hang on, you’re not giving a number, so how do you know that their number’s wrong?” Natalie Barr wanted to know. The Liberals were working on a plan, Ley said, that would let Australia’s infrastructure cope better with the number of arrivals.
ABC AM host Sabra Lane asked Ley to square her energy plan, which relies on more ageing, or even new, coal plants to bring down electricity costs, with a CSIRO finding that renewables are slightly cheaper than fossil fuels to bring online.
“I’m not going to comment on lines from reports. I’m commenting on what’s going on in the real world around me and the real facts,” Ley shot back. The cost of new electrical kit to make renewables reliable, transmission and firming power all made renewables more expensive, she argued.
As Ley tries to flood the zone with her talking points, Hastie is pursuing a very different strategy, which consists largely of Instagram posts, safe interviews and newsletters that read like a mix of a first year course on Western Civilisation mixed with a highly combative TikTok feed.
On Sunday, in an Instagram missive that typifies the genre, Hastie posted a meme of a grinning monkey taking an orange from a motorist. “Net Zero is about transferring your wealth into the hands of green energy grifters to pay for their wind and solar projects,” he wrote.
It is quite the contrast next to his frequent observations such as that Tolstoy offers “something new about people and human nature with every chapter” and quotes from Thomas Aquinas.
But as the Liberal party moves to the conservative side of a succession of ideological fault lines, Ley, the travelling saleswoman facing the questions that Hastie is avoiding, is increasingly selling the backbencher’s wares.

Sheesh, Nick, that image was pure Aquinas, distilled essence of bromancer and seared into the pond's brain, like a tat on Robert Mitchem's fingers.

But we must keep on with ancient Troy's pitch ...

The Nationals forced the Liberal Party’s hand. The Liberal Party has been effectively told what to do by its smaller Coalition partner. David Littleproud, his own leadership under threat, said Liberal policy “mirrored” that of his own party. Tail wagging the dog. Yet Littleproud also told me ahead of the election he supported net zero by 2050. Has he no convictions?
There was no need for the opposition to develop a climate change and energy policy now. The election is more than two years away. To be sure, the energy transition is not happening fast enough and power bills remain high. There is a need to bring more gas online and invest in battery storage and transmission. Net zero by 2050 may not be met but it is 25 years away.
The Coalition seems driven by internal divisions and leadership aspirations rather than finding the right policy mix. Abandoning net-zero emissions by 2050, while nonsensically remaining committed to the Paris Agreement, is ideology trumping politics. It underscores a party talking to its ever-shrinking conservative base. It will do nothing to edge the Coalition back to power.
The largest voter cohort is Millennials and Gen Z.

The reptiles decided that the coalition needed a good fright, The Liberal Party is spooked by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. Picture: NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard

Ancient Troy kept dissing the bromancer's vision ...

This group, outnumbering Baby Boomers, has deserted the Liberal Party in droves. Younger voters think the Liberal Party is not only out of touch but politically irrelevant. Female voters too have abandoned the party in record numbers. This climate policy retreat will only alienate them further.
How does this policy backflip help Liberals regain teal seats that were once the party’s heartland, where most of its voters, members and donors are located? In seat after seat, teal candidates have been able to dislodge sitting Liberal MPs, and almost all remain in power, with action on climate change a key election plank.
Morrison told me the party will never return to government without winning back teal seats. Certainly, without seats such as Warringah (Zali Steggall), Curtin (Kate Chaney), Kooyong (Monique Ryan), Mackellar (Sophie Scamps), Wentworth (Allegra Spender) and Bradfield (Nicolette Boele) in urban Australia, it is hard to see a pathway for the Liberal Party back to government.

The reptiles interrupted again with an AV distraction, The Coalition’s decision to abandon its commitment to net zero emissions has not saved it from a fall in popularity. The latest Redbridge poll shows Labor’s primary vote increasing four points to 38 per cent while the Coalition’s primary vote fell five percentage points to 24 per cent. Support for One Nation has risen four points to a poll-record high of 18 per cent. Labor leads the Coalition 56 per cent to 44 per cent on a two-party preferred basis. Sussan Ley now has just 10 per cent of voters preferring her as prime minister compared to 40 per cent for Anthony Albanese.

Elbows up lettuce, looking good, stay strong ...

This gets to the nub of the question: Who does the Coalition represent? If you talk to leading business groups – representing small, medium and large firms – they are aghast at the opposition tearing up the consensus over net zero by 2050. Business needs certainty for decision-making. No energy company wants to build new coal-fired power stations; they are embracing the shift to renewable energy. There is no policy credibility in what the Coalition parties are proposing. It is half-baked. What is their new 2030 and 2050 emissions reduction goal? What are the details of their commitment to reduce power bills – by how much and by when? How will they alleviate concerns in the business community over investment certainty or farmers adapting to a variable climate?

Cue Freedom boy, Tim Wilson – who only narrowly ousted teal independent Zoe Daniel in Goldstein and now holds the smallest margin of any Liberal in the House of Repsresentatives – was vocal in his backing for a net zero target. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Ancient Troy kept hammering away...

The Liberal Party is spooked by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. We have seen this before. A surge in the polls has not translated into winning a haul of lower house seats at previous federal elections. But conservatives are panicked and believe the party must move to the right to counter the rise of this far-right xenophobic nativist party.
But an iron law of Australian politics is that elections are won in the centre. It is absurd to have to explain this again and again.
The vast majority of Australian voters accept the science of climate change and want governments to mitigate it. It would have been smarter for the Liberal Party to keep the net-zero goal but chart a more likely path to reach it.
There is no evidence that backsliding on a policy the Coalition parties supported just six months ago has done anything to lift their standing. The Liberal Party is tanking in the polls – there is the answer.
Liberal Party federal director Andrew Hirst warned the party last week that the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 as it is, is emblematic of belief in and action on climate change. A warning came from Gisele Kapterian, Liberal candidate for Bradfield, who told MPs commitment to net zero was essential.

Next came a heretic in an AV distraction ...AI Group CEO Innes Willox claims he has always been a supporter for the “energy transition” and “affordable and reliable” energy for industries.

So to ancient Troy's summary of the situation, somewhat adrift from the splendid fundamentalism offered by the bromancer ...

“Retreat is an electoral liability,” she said. Keith Wolahan, who lost the seat of Menzies, also urged the party not to abandon net zero. Both were ignored. Don’t think more Liberal seats cannot be lost. Simon Kennedy in Cook is vulnerable, as is lucky Tim Wilson in Goldstein.
This is manna from heaven for Labor.
Rather than keep the focus on the government, struggling to manage the energy transition while reducing power bills and guaranteeing energy reliability, the opposition has made it about itself. Anthony Albanese will repeat every day that the Coalition does not believe in climate change action.
None of this has been well managed by Ley. By giving a free hand to the partyroom to determine policy, the leader ceded her authority. It would have been better to outline the principles – including sticking to net zero by 2050 – and let the party decide the energy mix to achieve it. Isn’t that the role of a leader? To lead?
The new policy – if you could call it that – was designed to save Ley’s leadership but the drum beat for a change in leader only grows louder day by day. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party’s existential challenge has deepened.

Music to the lettuce's ear, the dream beat for change growing louder by the day, and indeed it all does seem pretty simple ...

Speaking of that leadership, the pond had to quickly scoot past Geoff, chambering another round, but had to admire the way it too began with action figure Susssan in can do action handy person mode (*archive link) ...

How the reptiles loved that handy person image, how they kept on repeating it ...

Sorry, even though Geoff outlined some splendid targets the lettuce must aim at - can the lettuce really manage to beat Lord Downer's record? - the pond simply had to make room for Dame Groan, doing her usual Tuesday groan ...

The header: Failed overseas projects augur the risk in Jim Chalmers’ green dream for super, Let’s hope Jim Chalmers gets the memo: Overseas project failures portend strong reasons to object when governments try to direct the investments of people’s superannuation funds.

The caption for that sinister, surly follower of Sauron: Jim Chalmers wants investment barriers removed in areas such as housing, clean energy, possibly defence-related activities, but he isn’t yet signalling major changes to the performance test for superannuation funds. Picture: NewsWire / Nikki Short

Dame Groan took a goodly five minutes for her patented brand of fear mongering, Chicken Little hysteria, and rabid doomsterisms ...

The pond knows that her dedication to "we'll all be rooned by sundown" has a cult following, and surely this outing will reap Super devotion to her style ...

Last month, Treasurer Jim Chalmers confirmed the government was reviewing the performance test that applies to superannuation funds. This was one of the suggestions that emerged from the recent (low-productivity) roundtable on productivity.
In fact, the performance test has been in place for only a short time. It is administered by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and ranks funds based on annual and longer-term returns, net of fees, relative to a benchmark. For underperforming funds, the consequences are potentially severe, including forced mergers.
Let’s be clear, many of the super funds were never keen on this new rule, even though they are legislatively bound by the sole-purpose test to maximise the retirement benefits for their members. There are complaints that the performance test has led to a bunching of low-risk investments – listed equities are favoured relative to long-term illiquid assets offered by private equity players.

The Marrickville mauler provided a brief time out for members of the hive mind, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declares the Labor Party is the “party of superannuation”. “We created it, we strengthened it,” Mr Albanese said during Question Time on Monday. “The measures that have been put forward by the Treasurer will further strengthen the universal superannuation system.”

That sighting drove Dame Groan into a super frenzy ...

In a self-serving piece published in the Australian Financial Review, Mary Delahunty, of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, makes the case for change. “The government should consider how performance benchmarks in the superannuation performance test can best reflect forward-looking sectors such as clean energy, digital infrastructure and advanced manufacturing.”
In the opinion of ASFA, “one of the most profound opportunities lies in Australia’s energy transition – this is a chance to reshape our productive economy … This investment will not only decarbonise our infrastructure – it will modernise it, making our economy more efficient, resilient and innovative”.
The implication is that the performance test should be weakened to allow superannuation funds to invest in “nation-building” projects including those related to the energy transition. This may not pay off in the short run, but it’s hoped that there could be substantial returns over a longer time frame. Less emphasis on member returns, more emphasis on speculative investments linked to visions of the country’s future.
Because Australia tends to be a few years behind the rest of the world, it’s worth looking at what has been happening overseas.
There is a catastrophe of sorts emerging in Sweden where the government had channelled billions of kronor through workers’ pension funds to invest in “the new green industrial revolution” that would be “as transformative as the one 250 years ago” – the description of the former Social Democrat prime minister, Stefan Lofven.
One of these projects was Northvolt, an electric vehicle battery manufacturer located in the very north of the country where energy is cheap because of hydro and some wind power. It is only 80km from the Arctic Circle.

At this point the reptiles interrupted with a snap of another figure important to Dame Groan, UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves has launched Sterling 20 with a plan is to use people’s pension balances to fund things the government should be funding. Picture: WPA Pool/Getty Images

It was doom and gloom in classic Dame Groan style ...

Founded by two former Tesla executives with funding from Swedish billionaire Harald Mix, the company has now filed for bankruptcy, and the operation has ceased. The state-owned pension fund, AP2, made a substantial investment in Northvolt. Other pensions funds, including the one owned by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, also contributed substantially.
We now learn that another new green venture in Sweden is also teetering, again funded in part by directed pension funds. Initially called H2 Green Steel, it now goes by the name of Stegra. Its operation is in the same part of Sweden as Northvolt. The dream is to use low-emissions energy to produce green hydrogen that would, in turn, be used to make green steel using electric arc furnaces. The ambitious plan is to produce four million tonnes of green steel by the end of the decade, almost double Sweden’s current output of steel.
But various troubles have emerged along the way. There have been significant delays and costs have blown up. The government has withheld some grant funding because of a failure to meet emissions targets. No green steel has been produced at this stage.
Essentially, the company has run out of money and is looking to initial investors, including the AP2 pension fund, to stump up additional funds. Several have declined to do so and Harald Mix, who also helped fund this project initially, has resigned from the board. The required funding shortfall is close to €1bn ($1.78bn).
(There is a lesson for proponents of green steel. It might seem a sure bet, but there are clearly enormous risks attached to these kinds of projects. And bear in mind that Sweden has surplus hydro power and the local government responsible for the area where these plants are located has invested vast sums of money by way of infrastructure to support the projects.)

Could there be anything else involved?

No time for any of that, time to bring in that consummate expert, the dog botherer ... Sky News host Chris Kenny argues that the focus of super funds should be on maximising returns rather than directing funds towards government projects like renewable energy and housing. Recent failures of major super funds to make timely payouts has raised questions about the improper management of members' savings. “Superannuation, compulsory superannuation, is supposed to give you some comfort,” Mr Kenny said. “Our super funds are not the plaything of politicians. Labor should not and must not use our money to chase its electoral dreams. “Jim Chalmers and Labor are looking to treat your super savings as their investment slush fund. Be afraid. Be very afraid.”

That left time for a final ample serve of Dame Groan gloom...

Unsurprisingly, there has been a strong political reaction to these developments, particularly because Sweden now has a centre-right government. Oscar Sjostedt, economic spokesman for the Sweden Democrats, has stated that he is “infuriated” by the funds’ involvement. “It’s so clear that they just wanted to fool around with the pension funds to propagate their own party policies with no regard to pensioners’ futures,” he said. (It’s worth pointing out many renewable energy projects in Europe are now being sold at a loss – at around 30c in the dollar of book value. The fizz in this market has completely evaporated.)
In the meantime, UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves has launched Sterling 20, a scheme promoting the pension funds to channel savings into national assets such as infrastructure projects, affordable housing and firms in the artificial intelligence and fintech sectors.
According to Reeves: “Our country’s pension funds are some of the biggest in the world. When they invest in Britain, everyone benefits, from the construction worker on site, to the small business on the high street, to the saver seeing their pension grow. Sterling 20 shows what can be achieved when we all pull in the same direction to build a stronger economy that works for, and rewards, working people.”
Clearly, she’s no Churchill, but these are terrifying words. The plan is to use people’s pension balances to fund things that, by right, the government should be funding. The problem is that the UK government is dealing with rising debt and unsustainable budget deficits. Back here, there is no doubt that our Treasurer sees the upside of this sort of policy direction. He wants the barriers removed for investment in long-term asset classes such as housing, clean energy and possibly defence-related activities, although he is not signalling major changes to the performance test for superannuation funds at this stage.
In case you think green projects provide guaranteed returns in Australia, look at the recent collapse into administration of Vast, a renewable and clean-fuels company whose main plant is in Port Augusta, South Australia. Its annual loss last year was $450m, and without further equity funding the company will be wound up.
Let’s not forget it was an elected Argentinian government that decided in 2008 to appropriate money in the country’s private pension funds and pool it with government funds. People were told they would be no worse off with a government-funded pension; it made sense to have one pool of funds. Needless to say, it didn’t work out that way. When governments seek to direct the investments of people’s superannuation/pension funds, there are strong reasons, both in principle and practice, to object. Let’s hope Jim Chalmers gets the memo.

Argentina?

Why we'll just ask for a bail out ... if we could just find out how to get one ...

Perhaps IPA Killernomics will provide a clue in due course, but only if masks are doffed and vaccines are off...

And so to sign off with the immortal Rowe in what has been a splendid day for pond and lettuce ...

It's all in the detail, and look at the details of the the mob bedside, tending to the sickly one in her bed ... Little to be Proud of in earnest supplication and warm up exercises being done.

Hang on, hang on, look at the footwear, is there some sort of race soon to be run? Is Lord Downer's record about to fall?

Stay strong lettuce ...