Horse 3534 - Three Pieces, Two Faces, One Nation, Zero Credibility

Given that the Liberal Party is more or less in total disarray with the last actual competent leader having left the party in 2016, the right-wing trashmedia led by NewsCorp and Nine Ent Co, has been trying to place Pauline Hanson and One Nation as a popular alternative. Fair enough I say. If you are NewsCorp, you are basically a foreign owned and controlled media outlet which is openly working against the interests of the nation; and now that all meaningful industries other than dirt farming or rent farming have been burnt to the ground, then it really doesn't matter what kind of cussing insane madman who put at the front of your media coverage.

To that end, One Nation by virtue of the fact that they have no actual leadership or experience other than a cult of personality, have attempted to try and pretend to put forward policies. In truly incompetent fashion, they've not only demonstrated that they aren't capable of governing, or creating any meaningful policies, their wish list is internally incoherent as well. I would like to give them full marks for completeness - they're not just a shambles, they're a complete shambles.

1. Incoherent Wages Policy

https://www.onenation.org.au/super-pay-boost

“You get more of your own money in your pocket when you need it.

“For a full-time worker earning about $90,500, that means around $2,300 a year after tax, or $44 a week, extra in their pocket."

- Senator Pauline Hanson, One Nation Senator for Queensland, 7th Sep 2026

Not only is this monumentally stupid because of secondary effects to inflation and permanently damaging a poorer person's future, but it also is openly hypocritical when viewed in the light of One Nation and Pauline Hanson's actual statements and voting record.

From July 1 2026, the Fair Work Commission raised the national minimum wage by 5.97% (from $24.95 to $26.44 per hour, or about $1,004.90 a week for a 38-hour week). That difference is $56.62. Bear in mind that when Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027 was being considered in detail, Senator Hanson stated she opposed wage rises above the rate of inflation. She argued that higher wages put too much pressure on small businesses and could lead to job losses. 

Just to be clear here, what Senator Hanson actually wants and has voted for is that she wants us to access $44 of Super per week, while opposing a $56/week increase to the minimum wage. This is not about fighting for workers' rights at all, but the ability of employers to pay less. In this respect, Senator Hanson is just another tory.

2. Incoherent Media Policy

Senator Hanson called the proposed bill which would allow opt out of algorithms an “attack on free speech”. She then went of to call the bill a "Trojan horse" for government-mandated censorship.

I can understand that the concern here (or faux concern) is that the Communications Minister and the eSafety Commissioner would be given subjective powers to define what is and isn't "harmful content". The excuse offered against this is that a government agency would censor and bury lawful political speech and alternative view points.

Never mind the fact that in this instance, the government isn’t censoring content or dictating what Australians can say, nor is it trying to impose any kind of censorship. The bill with its opt-in clauses in principle, tries to give users the option of curating a feed made up exclusively of accounts they choose to follow; which was actually the point of social media in the first place. In that respect what it is actually doing is restoring an individual's agency over what lands in their faces.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/culture/inside-parliament/pauline-hanson-reveals-victorian-state-election-candidates/news-story/45cb4d695d73802d779856be08df533d

Pauline Hanson reveals Victorian state election candidates, bans ABC, The Guardian, The Age from press conference

Pauline Hanson has blocked three media outlets from attending the announcement of her party’s Victorian election candidates.

In Melbourne on Monday, Senator Hanson revealed the seven candidates and one incumbent who would run for the party at the November election, but reporters from the ABC, The Age and The Guardian were denied entry.

- Herald-Sun, 3 August 2026

I do not know how it makes any sense to accuse a government policy of government-mandated censorship when you yourself, openly ban journalists from your press conferences. I would like Senator Hanson to clarify why an individual is not allowed to curate what they read, but she is allowed to openly ban and censor who is allowed to report on her. If she actually became Prime Minister and this policy was continued, then what she is openly saying is that she not only demands the right to refuse public scrutiny, but she also wants to deny the public the right to refuse propaganda.  

3. Lying Is Now Policy

Their Victorian state candidate Harrison Rindfleish claim he completed a law degree, despite being a first year uni student.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/one-nations-youngest-candidate-caught-falsely-claiming-a-law-degree-years-before-graduation/news-story/52ac91e8c8f210f2eedce229416823e1&usg=AOvVaw0pRNx-rYT6oxqwhpChPQHO&opi=89978449

One Nation's youngest candidate has been caught out fibbing about his own credentials, falsely spruiking a law degree years before he'll eligible to complete it. Harrison Rindfleish's LinkedIn profile – which has since been deleted – shows he is a student and is yet to complete any university qualification.

One Nation has refused to comment.

- Herald-Sun, 3 September 2026

Or how about this doozie:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/australian-federal-police-denies-claim-it-warned-venue-of-one-nation-threat/news-story/fca2e99041550726d2472b21f1f7c57a&

The Australian Federal Police has denied providing security advice that led to the cancellation of a One Nation branch meeting in Victoria last week.

“Club Sunbury received advice from the Australian Federal Police in relation to a threat and associated security concerns and, having considered that advice, made the decision that the events would not proceed,” she said when announcing the cancellation.

“This all occurred at very short notice, with the Hawke Branch being informed shortly before the events were due to commence."

But an AFP spokesman told the Herald Sun the decision to cancel the event was made by the venue alone, adding it never provided the advice.

“The AFP did not provide advice to the venue,” he said.

- Herald-Sun, 7 September 2026

How can One Nation claim that the AFP told One Nation to cancel their event in Sunbury, if the AFP never actually did that? I don't understand how you expect to claim credibility if what you claim is reasonably easy to investigate and find out to be a fabrication. I totally get that we now live in a post-truth society where everything is made up and the points don't matter but if you're going to say that the government and opposition can't be trusted and then repeatedly demonstrate that you also can't be trusted, then what's the point?

I genuinely don't understand how One Nation wants us to believe that they’re serious about governing when they're not even serious about presenting basic truth or inventing credible policy. 

Horse 3533 - Steal The Future To Pay Your Landlord

https://www.onenation.org.au/super-pay-boost

One Nation will give Australians paying rent or a mortgage the choice to take one quarter of their future compulsory super contributions as a tax-advantaged 3% pay boost for up to three years.

“People are working hard and still struggling to get ahead.

Interest rates keep rising. Rents keep climbing. Groceries, power bills, petrol and insurance are taking more and more out of the family budget.

Inflation is hurting Australian families and Labor’s economic incompetence is making life harder.

One Nation wants to give people some breathing room.

If you are paying rent or a mortgage on your home, One Nation will allow you to choose to receive one quarter of your future compulsory super contributions in your take-home pay for up to three years."

- One Nation, Senator Pauline Hanson, One Nation Senator for Queensland, 7th September 2026

What an absolutely top idea!

If you think that this is a good idea, then you might like other ideas such as injecting yourself with petrol, eating spiders, or having your friends kick you in the face repeatedly.

How about we actually play with the numbers that they've given us. Let's assume that the potential earnings rate is a modest 2% after inflation. Let's also assume a period of 20 years; which means that the person is middle aged.

"For a full-time worker earning about $90,500, that means around $2,300 a year after tax, or $44 a week, extra in their pocket."

At just 2%, then the cost of forgone gains is $10,578 over 20 years.

"For a working couple earning $168,000 between them, it is about $4,300 a year after tax, or $82 a week, back in the family budget."

At just 2%, then the cost of forgone gains is $19,714 over 20 years.

"That’s a real boost to help you pay the rent or the mortgage, leaving more room for groceries, power bills and the costs of raising a family."

Just to be clear here, what One Nation is openly saying is that instead of actually trying to put forward any policy which would address the issues of rents and mortgages payments, increasing grocery bills, power bills and the costs of raising a family, their solution as confessed by them is literally for people to eat their own future now.

What's particularly insane about this is that One Nation has campaigned vigorously that changes to the minimum wage would add to inflationary pressure. Pauline Hanson herself actively opposed any increase in wages which were above inflation and Malcolm Roberts has argued in the Senate that wage rises in an inflationary environment can simply be swallowed by higher prices. 

At the same time, if this absolutely insane policy actually were to become law, then this policy releases dollars into the economy immediately and does exactly what Malcolm Roberts argued against because the monies taken out of Super would be immediately swallowed by higher prices. When you shift massive amounts of savings into the economy by injecting it directly into the circular flow of money, that's a recipe for instant price rises.

If renters suddenly have more money available each week, then landlords will simply increase their prices. If people wanting to purchase a house suddenly have extra monies available, then markets will adjust to cover that. This is an identical set of arguments against super for first-home deposits. If you can instantly change the numbers of what people can afford for a thing with actually addressing the underlying issues, markets also instantly change. 

What One Nation's policy is, is to present itself as the party of working Australians but this policy does literally nothing. If somebody working full-time cannot afford the ordinary costs of living from their current income, then we not only solve nothing be letting them spend part of their retirement but because of the compounding interest issues as worked through above, we actually make people's "retirement" even more grim or steal it away from them entirely.

Let's call this proposal for what it is. This theft of the future. Productivity hasn’t suddenly been rewarded, rents haven't fallen, mortgage haven’t shrunk; if anything all of those things would get worse because One Nation is trying to frame this as a personal choice issue by openly declaring that the poorest of people simply do not deserve a future; nor will they be afforded one.

Cost-of-living problems? Just use Super. Mortgage issues? Just use Super. Rental increases? Just use Super. For every year you steal now, that's tens of thousands over a working life. What's worse is that the thousands which will go missing from retirement after compounding, go straight into the pockets of landlords and richer people; all of which actively makes poorer people's lives worse in the future as well.

I think that's the plan here. Pauline Hanson is still a tory. What this is, is straight out of the tory playbook. Steal the future. 

Horse 3498 - The Hidden (Not Hidden) Player In The Dismissal

 Today marks the 50th anniversary of The Dismissal of Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister and the installation of Malcolm Fraser. Yes this was all put in place by a series of fortunate events for his political enemies, including the means to permanently block supply in the Senate (which is why this was enabled), and while the role of the Palace was eventually brought to light because of the work and ins insistence of historian Professor Jenny Hocking, they ultimately don't reveal an active hand from London.

Probably the most instrumental person (apart from Kerr himself) in this whole process, was Rupert Murdoch. As the inheritor of his father's political party, turning his hand to political manipulation was something that he realised that he actually could do with relative ease.

While the actions of Sir John Kerr as Governor General are somewhat easy to establish in an official capacity because the paperwork exists, trying to work out who he saw and when, from the other side of the fog of fifty years, is more difficult. Kerr is dead. The people who he spoke to are also likely dead. Mr Murdoch on the other hand, although not dead, would have always seen this as politically expedient because he got the job done.

The trigger for all of this was the 1974 Budget. In the 1974 budget, the Whitlam Government introduced free tertiary education, and publicly funded childcare, and publicly funded women’s services, and while he couldn't actually establish publicly funded healthcare which was still the domain of the states he did establish Medibank as a publicly owned and operated health insurance agency. I can not stress enough, how much this absolutely enraged the All Ordinaries companies and especially the funders and donors to the Liberal Party.

Something had to be done. The rich and powerful will only tolerate so much democracy before they want to smash it to pieces.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/11/murdochs-role-in-the-dismissal-and-my-job-in-japan/

Murdoch often held soirees at Cavan with editors and managers at his rural retreat outside Canberra. On one of those soirees, 12 months before the dismissal, he invited Kerr. It was late in the afternoon and Kerr, as was his custom, had had a few drinks by the time he got to Cavan.

Ian Fitchett, the doyen of the press gallery and the chief correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, was present at that Cavan meeting in late 1974. Fitchett told me that Murdoch had asked Kerr to speculate on the possibilities if the Opposition refused Supply. This was then a topical issue as the Coalition had contemplated refusing supply in late 1974. But it backed off.

- John Menadue, 8th Nov 2025

This obviously had a longer time to slowly boil than I thought that it did. Although we almost certainly can not confirm recollections of what amounts to hearsay, I have come across enough of these kinds of stories which all point at the same kinds of thing. 

Kerr and Murdoch were on good enough terms that Kerr went to Cavan (Rupert Murdoch's estate) on what appears to be multiple occasions between the Budget of 1974 and November 1975. There appears to be no visits after that date; presumably because as Rupert had got what he wanted, there wasn't no need for Kerr anymore.

The last of the visits made by Kerr to Cavan happened on the weekend of 4th and 5th of October 1975; I think that they likely gamed out the course of events which would follow. I don't know what exactly Murdoch had over Kerr but I suspect that it would have been ruinous to Kerr's life. As it was, Kerr was a professional drunkard and his only other notable event from this point onwards, was being to three sheets to the wind at the 1977 Melbourne Cup.

Herein lies the problem. The Palace Letters are fine but ultimately don't reveal much. The most important meetings happened without any public scrutiny and were essentially the actions of business running roughshod over democracy.

Fraser's Government which followed managed to do the impossible of double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. Real wages peaked in Q3 1977 if you compared AWOTE with CPI, and the economy has been redesigned since, so that capital is well and truly winning. Whitlam had to go because he upset capital. 

In addition to meeting with Kerr, Rupert Murdoch met with Malcolm Fraser on numerous occasions, in the run up to the dismissal of the Whitlam government. Fraser leaked like a sieve and all kinds of official secrets and intelligence information found their way into Murdoch's various media publications. 

Even after Whitlam was removed and Fraser installed, it was discovered in the files of the Attorney General's Office that there were records of a slew of recording exchanges of information between Mr Murdoch and the Fraser government.

The thing to remember about this whole thing is that the Constitution always laid out the powers of the Governor General to appoint and dismiss Ministers of the Crown, and that even in the face of what was otherwise weaponised corruption, this was all nice and legal; because of that, there were/are no grounds for any consequences whatsoever.

Horse 3461 - Nobody Sensible Is In Charge: Let's Eat Milo Out Of The Tin

 If you'd have asked me a week ago, who the worst leader of the Liberal Party was, I would have said Peter Dutton. As a leader, he led the Opposition to the lowest primary vote in the party's 80 year history, and also the fewest number of members on the floor of the chamber, ever.

However, it turns out that the Liberal Party had even lower to fall, and in their attempts to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to find a new leader, they picked upon Sussan Ley.

Apart from being an absolute punkwomble and a cussgibbon, she has proven to be so bereft of actual leadership ability that under her tenure, the Opposition has snapped in half.

The relatively new leader of the National Party, David Littleproud, stunned Canberra this afternoon, when he formally announced that as of 20th May 2025, the Coalition would be suspended.

This is not necessarily a new thing in Australian politics. In Queensland the National Party decoupled itself from the Liberal Party under the tenure of Sir Joh Bielke-Petersen, and ruled in Queensland in its own right for a while.

In contrast, in the 2001 Queensland State election, the Liberal Party won a paltry 9 seats, and in 2004 they actually achieved complete electoral extinction. By the 2007 election in Queensland, the Liberal National Party was not just a formal enmeshing of the two parties, it was the admission that the Liberal Party was unelectable but still had the necessary resources to be able to run a political party. The Queensland LNP is essentially 100% National Party members using the Liberal Party's stuff. 

It is therefore not surprising at all that David Littleproud and the National Party has decided to bail on the Liberal Party. Littleproud is a Queenslander; so this means that this is nothing special to him. 

Naturally it left Sussan Ley fuming. Having just realised that she was not in control of the smaller of the two parties of the coalition, her reactions to the press were both curt and acrid. Being Opposition Leader was already a pretty horrid job, being the first Opposition Leader after a party has just lost an election is a degree worse; this is one step beyond.

So what does any of this mean for the numbers on the floor of the parliament?

93 - Labor 

28 - Liberal

15 - National 

1 - Green 

1 - Central Alliance 

1 - Katter 

9 - Independents

Take note of that. 15+1+1+1+9 = 27

The absolute insanity of how the numbers on the floor currently sit, is that all it would take would be one member of the Liberal Party to slide up the chamber and join the National Party, and suddenly the Green/Green/Orange/Brown/Teal/Grey peloton could form their own spite coalition. Remember, a Westminster parliament cares not even an iota about the makeup of parties or members who sit inside it.

In fact, if I had a seat in the whole sort of general mish-mash (WSOGMM), then I'd seriously be canvassing for the most hilarious thing of all - to form the WSOGNM Coalition and install Bob Katter as the Opposition Leader. 

If politics is a game, and all the men and women merely players, then why not go for the most hilarious outcome possible. If we don't do it then Australia faces untold horrors because "in the meantime, every three months, a person is torn to pieces by a crocodile in north Queensland."

... if not politically by north Queensland. 

Horse 3459 - Why Preferential Voting And Instant Run-Off Voting Are The Best

Say what you will about the policies or complete lack thereof of the various political parties, the 2025 Federal Election has returned Albanese's Labor Government with a resounding majority. Even as I write this on Monday morning and the dust is beginning to clear and the dregs of pre-polls start to have their influence on the final tally, Labor will surely hold government in its own right; without needing to rely on the crossbench for supply and confidence. 

There is one thing about this election which none of the newspapers will even dare to look at, as Nine Ent Co and News Corp are even loath to admit that the election even happened; that is that Preferential Voting is not only good but overwhelmingly excellent.

It is only partisan hacks who think that First-Past-The-Post voting is good for anything, because they are motivated by the raw numbers which suggest that their particular football team should have one. In any Tweet, Skeet, or Toot online where the person expresses a preference for First-Past-The-Post voting, it is never based on the fitness of purpose for the system. 

Likewise, there appears to be a cohort of psephologist cheerleading that thinks that Score Voting/STAR voting, is also a good idea. When you boil both of these down, what you actually get is a modified First-Past-The-Post and maybe with an additional run-off which is based upon the existing votes cast. While I understand why people might like this, usually the reasons of fitness of purpose involve some degree of outright lying (which is bad).

What Preferential Voting and Instant Run-Off Voting has done in the 2025 Federal Election which neither First-Past-The-Post nor Score Voting/STAR voting are capable of doing, is that one thing which is essential in an election and that is, determine the level of consent of the governed. 

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

- Declaration of Independence, 4th July 1776

Setting aside the various "He has" statements within that document which are mostly lies, the United States' Declaration of Independence contains occasional nuggets of truth within it. If we assume that the principle that governments deriving their from the consent of the governed because this is just, then it follows that the best method of conducting an election is not to ask "who do you most want to govern?" but rather "who will you eventually agree to govern you?". Neither First-Past-The-Post nor Score Voting/STAR voting are either capable of doing this, nor do their advocates seem to think that this is a goal worth pursuing.

If you just look at the raw numbers of the 2025 Federal Election as a whole, what we see is this:

34.8% - Labour

32.0% - Coalition

11.9% - Greens

 6.2% - One Nation

 1.8% - Trumpet of Patriots

13.3% - All others

First-Past-The-Post and Score Voting/STAR voting will tell you that these blocs exist. They may even tell you which one of these blocks people like. They do not tell you which one of these blocs that the electorate has a visceral hate for. Marking an X or even some kind of Score does not actually give you a value for discrete hatred from a voter. 

It can not be stated enough but the 2025 election was not won by Labor. The result did not swing on the 1s of the roughly 1/3rd of the electorate who put the Greens/One Nation/Trumpet/Others as their top pick. This election mostly swung on the 2s and 3s across a vast number of electorates. This result is far more granular and precise than First-Past-The-Post and Score Voting/STAR voting could ever hope to tell you.

The actual meaning of this result, is that as roughly 9% of the electorate has moved to a more nativist position, and about 14% is quite progressive, the number of Teal Seats within urban areas and the swings to Labor on 2s and 3s in the outer suburbs of cities, tells you that the electorate HATES the coalition more than it hates Labor.

This election was not a clash of two great iconoclastic parties fighting for control of some ideological future. This election was a fight between Winnie The Pooh and Skeletor. That's fine. People are allowed to like Skeletor. What the 2s and 3s have delivered is the result that people hate the idea of Skeletor being in charge of anything. Moreover the result of Peter Dutton losing his own seat of Dickson, was a rejection by his electorate personally; who have collectively decided  that he is not for them any more.

What preferential voting and Instant Run-Off Voting has done, is tell us who the 33.2% of the electorate would eventually agree to, to govern them. They objectively do not like either Labor or the Coalition as their first choice. What they will eventually agree to though, is that they will accept a Labor Government and they will do that time and time again across the country.

The really idiotic thing is that people on the political right in Australia, still complain about media bias despite and in spite of the fact that all of the newspapers, and most of the TV and Radio stations, are either owned by and/or toe a Coalition line. News Corp, Seven West Media, Nine Ent Co, all lined up behind the Coalition and most of the ABC was either too afraid or not concerned enough to properly question them. The people on the other hand, have spoken differently; with some indicating with their vote that the Coalition weren't nativist enough and some indicating with their vote that the Coalition were too far to the right. The hard core seats basically always remain with their respective parties, but it is the great cloud in the middle that has swung this election. 

Ultimately, the Coalition has not been consented to; which given that incumbency is an advantage is probably to be expected but the degree which they were shown disdain, both in the lowest number of 1s in their history and the flow of preferences which went the other way, shows that Preferential Voting and Instant Run-Off Voting have given us a more discrete view of the level of that disdain; which is something that neither Score Voting/STAR voting are capable of doing.

Horse 3458 - Election 2025: Bin Night

 1930

ALP 29

L/NP 26

GRN 0

OTH 6

At half past in the evening, when the first 5% of the vote has been counted, there is already a 9.9% swing against Peter Dutton; which means that not only is he unlikely to be the next Prime Minister but he is in real danger of losing his own seat. 

The 'wedge' of voters who have decided to vote for someone other than the majors is now standing at about 37%; which is the largest since the 1910 election.

2000

ALP 29

L/NP 26

GRN 0

OTH 6

At 8pm there has not been any vast change in the projected seats that the parties are likely to win. 

As for my seat of Chifley, 'Red Ed' Husic is holding a staggering 74% of the primary vote; which means that in all likelihood the seat isn't even going to go to second preferences at all. 

If in fact Eden-Monaro retains its position as the bellwether seat, then at this stage of the count, then the Labor Party retains government but it is still unknown in what capacity.

2030

ALP 76

L/NP 34

GRN 3

OTH 10

At Labor HQ there has been a lot of bouncing about as Antony Green declared that there is no way for the Liberal/National Parties to form government.

The big question at this point is whether or not the Labor Party wins government in its own right, if it can form some kind of coalition of supporters for supply on the floor, or if the Governor General will simply give Anthony Albanese the commission@ for the Premiership despite having only minority government.

Based on only 22% of the vote, while I can not project out the full results, it is reasonable to assume that most of the votes that follow, also follow the same trends.

2100

ALP 77

L/NP 33

GRN 2

OTH 10

This late into the evening it is entirely possible that the swing was so bad, that the wipeout of coalition seats is enough to lose even those already tallied.

Probably the most interesting thing which I did not predict was that the L/NP did not gain ground against the teals and the independents.

If you ignore the swing towards the Greens on primary vote (which is now standing at about 13%) then the swing towards the others generally (which includes One Nation and the Trumpet Of Patriots) is tracking at at least 20% and well on the way towards 25%.

Bob Katter in the seat of Kennedy has such a grip on primaries, that he is likely to waltz in with more than 75% of the vote. 

Ian Goodenough who was disendorsed by the Liberal Party in the Western Australian seat of Moore, might very well win as an independent. With only 7% of the vote counted, it is still not enough to declare anything with any certainty. I would expect though that without the Liberal Party behind him, it will be unlikely that he scores more than about 15% because brand recognition is often stronger than personal reputation.

2130

ALP 78

L/NP 33

GRN 1

OTH 9

At half past nine, Peter Dutton gave a concession speech to the nation and I have to say that if we saw this level of graciousness at any point during the past three years, he may very well won his own seat and led the party to victory.

If Peter Dutton is not in the parliament, then the immediate question is who is going to lead the Liberal Party. Apart from the obvious problem of who actually has a seat to be able to do the job, I do not think that there is an obvious leader. Maybe Dan Tehan is the most senior member? Who knows?

2200

ALP 87

L/NP 39

GRN 1

OTH 9

It has become obvious that in Tasmania there has been a double digit swing towards Labor and that all five seats are likely to be held by them. 

More generally, with Tasmania and Victoria where the Labor Party is not popular at state level, this kind of result is unheard of. This is not so much a Labor win but the worst result for the Liberal Party since its inception in 1944.

This late in the evening, the possibility of there being a minority government has faded. Even if all of the remaining 14 seats still in doubt by my count fall to the Liberals, then Labor still holds government in its own right. 

2230

ALP 87

L/NP 39

GRN 0

OTH 11

By my count through Wikipedia, apart from Stanley Bruce and John Howard, I think that Peter Dutton is the first Opposition Leader to have lost his own seat in 125 years. 

Albanese actually becomes the first Prime Minister since 2004 to have won back to back elections. Admittedly it should be nominally easier to win an election with the benefit of incumbency but the fact that since 2007 we have had knives out all the time, suggests that maybe the idea of doing boring governance might have returned. 

Since I last plugged the AEC data into my spreadsheet, although Sarah Witty is not ahead in Melbourne, she has so many 1s that I can no longer call Greens' MP Adam Bandt as retaining the seat.

I am not Albo's biggest fan by far, but I don't think you can pin this result entirely on the failed campaign of the Coalition. You don't win 80+ seats just because the opposition is useless. Although having said that, Peter Dutton is officially the most damaging leader of the Liberal Party in federal history.

2300

ALP 87

L/NP 40

GRN 0

OTH 12

Perhaps the craziest result in this election was that former Labor Senator Anne Urquhart has been pitted against Mal Hingston for the seat of Braddon. The AEC is currently reporting that this is a 15.1% swing against the Liberal Party.

Broadly speaking, what we have seen is that of the 18 million voters in this country, 12 million have voted for the majors but 6 million have not. Those 6 million are likely to be Gen-Y and Gen-Z, who have long been thrown overboard by the major parties. 

2312

ALP 87 (86)

L/NP 51

GRN 0 (1)

OTH 12

This is how I think that the final count will shake out.

I do not see any new seats flipping to Labor but even so, this is a stonking majority for the Labor Party. Is this a landslide? Maybe.

I have no idea who is likely to attempt to be the Liberal Party leader after this, and it may even be that the immediate Opposition Leader could very well be David Littleproud as the National Party hasn't seemed to be affected at all.

Either way, Albanese has boringly been reinstalled as Prime Minister and the Australian people have decided that it was bin night and have chucked out a potato.

Horse 3457 - In Which I Predict The Winner Of The 2025 Federal Election

The 2025 Australian Federal Election is in theory the hardest to predict the result for, since the 1906 Federal Election. The reason for this is the same though. Before 1910 when the two big massive flocks of political groups starting flying in the same kinds of directions, the Westminster System which is both apathetic and agnostic to the results that it throws up, produced a series of parliaments where the wedge between the two flocks was so big that government was hard to form.

Australia since about the time of Howard, has had an increasing amount of displeasure and distrust in the two big flocks, such that the spread and scope of the wedge has grown. In 2010 when Ms Gillard took Labor to victory, the wedge was smallish but because the two big groups were perfectly poised, it was a crossbench of 4 of 5, which returned the Labor Party to government.

In 1906, the wedge between the Labor Party led by Chris Watson and George Reid's Anti-Socialist Party, was mostly made of former Prime Minister Alfread Deakin's Protectionist Party and former Premier of Western Australia John Forrest who led a party of two. In 2025, the wedge consists of 16 seats. 

I have a spreadsheet which by taking the results of the previous election and the results of the NewsPoll, YouGov, and Morgan polls, assumes a uniform swing across the country to determine what the outcome is. The problem with this kind of methodology in 2025 is that it has as it's base assumption that a Two-Party Preferred (2PP) basis is good enough to calculate uniform swing, and then populate the results downwards across the board. The wedge is now so large, and the expected primary vote for both of the two big flocks, that my spreadsheet is now spitting out #DIV/0 errors in 22 seats. That's larger than the wedge, and larger than any possible sensible set of calculations for the result can handle. 

So in producing my prediction, I have had to override many of the equations which go into the various cells; then use the 2PP basis to calculate the result, even though I know full well that the result is going to be idiotic. This is a "Garbage In, Garbage Out" set of calculations because the the quality of any output is directly determined by the quality of the input. In this case, even though the equations used to generate a uniform swing calculator are perfect because the data is in essence flawed, the results are also flawed. You can not make a silken purse from a sow's ear.

Be that as it may, this is my prediction for the 2025 Australian Federal Election. I have an 80% success rate for picking Australian Federal Election results in broad terms (definitely not numbers); which I put down to the fact that it becomes really obvious late in the piece as to whom is unelectable.

Labor 79 (+2)

L-NP 64 (+6)

Green 1 (-3)

Other 6 (-5)

I think that the Liberal Party in particular will claw back seats from the Greens and the Teals, but I doubt that even a single Labor held seat will flip from red to blue. 27 seats did not even come close to finishing as winnable contests in 2022 and ironically, given that the wedge of votes is getting wider, I think that that hard core unswingable base will only grow on both sides. I think that Bennelong is the seat that will flip back to red and that Eden-Monaro will retain its status as bellwether. Kennedy will remain Bob Katter's seat. Warringah will remain Zali Steggal's seat. Dr Helen Haines will remain as Member for Indi.

If there is going to be any surprise on the night, it will be if Peter Dutton is so on the nose that he loses his seat of Dickson. Nominally it would take a swing of 1.5% to displace him which is less than 1700 votes. He might survive because of name recognition or fall precisely because of that same thing.

What would be really weird is if the wedge proves to be massive and blue at the same time. If the wedge is bigger than 9% across the country, then as many as 43 seats could be in play; which means that government might swing on the basis of 3rd and 4th preferences. There is a remote possibility that Ali France wins the seat of Dickson for Labor but the Labor Party loses. If that happens, then there is a chance that Peter Dutton would be given the commission as Prime Minister but with no seat, and then either win a seat in a by-election or take up a seat in the Senate upon the resignation of a Liberal Party sacrifice.

Always the ticking time bomb in the background is Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026; which currently has a status of "Not Proceeding" and "Lapsed at dissolution" upon 28th Mar 2025. As it was introduced on 25th Mar 2025, then the six months given for the Senate to reject or fail to pass it, ends on 26th Sep 2025.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7327

This means that the weirdest possible timeline of all is a Labor Government, with Peter Dutton as Leader of the Opposition from the Senate, blocking the budget, to send us back to the polls in October or November. 

I think that the most likely scenario is either the Labor Party winning majority with a margin of 3 or less, or having to negotiate with the big wedge, hoping to scrobble about for the 2 or 3 seats necessary for a majority on the floor to secure supply and confidence. 

Ho and Hum.

Horse 3453 - Prime Minister Peter Dutton, Senator for Queensland?

If I plug in relevant polling data into my swing calculator, then I have results of the May 2025 election as thus:

77 - Labor

68 - Coalition

6 - Others (KAP, Green, IND)

That means that the Coalition claws seats back from the Independents and Greens but that practically no Labor seats move at all.

If there was a swing towards the Coalition, then it is possible that there could be a Coalition but that the current member for Dickson would not be returned. The balance of probabilities for Dickson suggests that Peter Dutton would hold the seat but it would only take a swing of 1.7% for the Labor candidate Ali France, to topple him.

If this unlikely outcome happens, then we are in the unique position of a Leader of the Opposition losing their seat but the party winning government. 

So what would happen in such a scenario?

Section 64 of the Constitution states that:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/Constitution/chapter2#chapter-02_64

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

Ministers to sit in Parliament

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

- Section 64, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)

As the "Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State" and they "shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General" then there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Governor-General appointing literally anyone and anything in the world to the office of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has no other definition at Constitutional law other than being a Minister of State. This means that as there is no other definition, then the Governor-General may appoint anyone they like.

If a minister lost their seat at an election they would no longer be a member of parliament. They could still be the Minister, provided that they were then able to attain a seat within 89 days. Likewise if Mr Dutton were to lose the seat of Dickson, then presumably he could contest some other seat in a by-election assuming that a Member of the House resigned, or be appointed to the Senate provided that some other Senator resigned.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/Constitution/chapter1/Part_II_-_The_Senate#chapter-01_part-02_15

Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State and, at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognized by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to be such a candidate, a person chosen or appointed under this section in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, shall, unless there is no member of that party available to be chosen or appointed, be a member of that party.

- Section 15, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)

The idea that a Senator is Prime Minister is unusual but not Constitutionally invalid. In the current arrangement of the Albanese ministry, there are 10 Senators who are either Ministers, Assistant Ministers, or Special Envoys. The idea that a Senator is Prime Minister is also not new.

When John Gorton was appointed as the 19th Prime Minister of Australia on 10th January 1968, after Harold Holt's disappearance in December 1967, he became the first and thus far only senator to assume the office of Prime Minister. Granted that he did contest and win the seat of Higgins which Harold Holt previously held, but there was no Constitutional demand for him to do so. Gorton was even Prime Minister without even holding a seat in Parliament for 38 days; which is longer than Frank Forde and John McEwen's time in the office put together.

Nominally the Prime Minister, as the leader of the government, would want to be a member of the House of Representatives because this is where government is formed. However as there is no mention of the existence of a "Prime Minister" and no rule that the Prime Minister can not be a Senator, then this is only by mere convention and tradition. As we saw when Scott Morrison became minister for Health; Finance; Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Home Affairs; and Treasury, then even within the 20s mere convention and tradition holds only as long as mere convention and tradition holds.

Prime Minister Peter Dutton, Senator for Queensland is not beyond the realms of possibility because out there in the unknown future and if your dare, all things are possible.

Horse 3450 - Australia Needs To AUKexit

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the United States under its current kleptministration, is seriously intent on not only burning every single relationship that it has with the entire world, but also the entire apparatus of its own government so that Russian billionaires can swoop in and but everything for a song. A client of mine who grew up in East Germany and lived through reunification, thinks that the process currently going on in America looks similar to what happened in many places which were formerly on the dismal side of the Iron Curtain. 

We have to assume that as the White House has refused to see the Australian Ambassador on a number of occasions, which deliberately withheld basic intelligence from Ukraine as a bargaining chip to make it surrender and hand itself to Russia, and which on the only occasion that Australia actually asked for military assistance refused, would drop Australia like a plate of cold vomit at the earliest opportunity. We must assume that AUKUS is an extortion program and that any request for US assistance in the future will be met with abject disdain.

The fact that the United States wants to invade Greenland, and Panama, and Canada and has shut Canada out of the Five Eyes intelligence network, should give us immediate pause. Quite frankly, I think that the United States should be shut out of Pine Gap, and the interference which followed after Mr Whitlam suggested such a proposal in 1975, merely serves to proves that the United States has never really seen Australia either as an equal or even as a friend. Remember, it was the decisions of the United States which led to Australians being sent to die in Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. 80 years of Australian blood being spent on the coin on the battlefield, is worthless to the United States.

Already NATO countries were fearful that the F-35 Lightning II as delivered by Lockheed-Martin may have contained so-called "kill switches"; which although is unfounded, is not entirely removed from the truth. The F-35 does rely on target acquisition software, which does require updates; this means that the United States if it wanted to (which we must assume that it does), would also refuse to update the active target acquisition software. Unlike most NATO countries which have a combination of Panavia Tornado, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, and SAAB JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets, the frontline combat squadrons of the RAAF include the F-35 Lightning II, F/A-18F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler; which are all US delivered.

If Mr Trump has given anything to the world in seven weeks, it is that any sense of complacency is misplaced. Maybe various nations will increase their defence spending to 2% or 3% of GDP. Even we as we speak, Europe is already preparing for the defence of Ukraine, by actively shutting out the United States from the discussions. 

So where does that leave us? In practical terms it leaves us as a sunburnt prison island hidden in the summer for a million years. 

Even if we assume that we are going to get the first of our Emotional Support Nuclear Submarines at the first available date of 2034 (which is utter insanity anyway), the world will have quietly changed. The United States which has voluntarily been backing away from being the premier Superpower since 1991 once it realised that there was no Soviet Union as its acceptable designated enemy, has been on the slide ever since and will have declined to being World Superpower #4 behind China, India and Indonesia in economic terms. 

China has no need to invade because it already exerts soft power everywhere. India has no need to invade because it will exert soft power everywhere. Indonesia is therefore the only likely candidate to invade and to be fair, I doubt it the political system is such that they're going to be organised to be able to do so for some time yet. If we assume that those three are the three great powers of the twenty-first century and are like giant soap bubbles which sit upon the Earth, then the logical position for Australia is to align itself somewhere sensible so that we can live in peace with those powers, rather than perpetually trying to give them the irrits which is current American policy.

As I write this, this American people are mostly unaware that more than 600 tons of its ordinance has been dropped onto refugees who up until yesterday were living in Gaza. While that might be fine for the American people who are blissfully sung to sleep like pathetic babies constantly being fed indigestible right-wing formula, the rest of the world looks ony justifiably horrified. If we continue to align ourselves with this barbarous and murderous pack of bastards, the rest of the world and especially our immediate neighbours in Asia, would be quite rightly justified in painting us with the same brush, as untrustworthy and unworthy adversaries. Do we really need adversaries?

At any rate, the whole issue of Australian spending more than a third of a trillion dollars on nuclear submarines, never once adequately answers that the basic teleological question - Why? What's the point? What do we expect the defence force to actually do? Moreover, do we actually expect eight singular points (if they ever exist) to be able to defend a nation this big? If we do, is the political class in this country so incredibly delusional that they believe in fairy stories? In some respects, this looks exactly the same as the hoo-haa about the Great Powers acquiring battleships in the decade before the First World War. Even a whole fleet of Dreadnoughts was utterly useless and pointless, when it came to fighting trench warfare in places like Pozier, Ypres, and The Somme. Unless your submarine has wheels or wings, it's pretty difficult to fight on land or in the air.

If I am correct, and that AUKUS will functionally prove to be nothing more than an extortion program, then we needed to be out of it before we ever signed up, we needed to be out of it yesterday, and we need to be out of it today if not sooner. The message hidden in plain sight in the slogan of "America First" is that they ultimately do not care about us, nor what happens to us unless there is tangible benefit in it for them. The world of 2045 and 2075 will look vastly different to the way it does now, and the decisions taken today, will affect the lives of Australians not yet born, to be able to live peaceably and quietly, in our corner of the world.

Horse 3448 - What The WA Election Should Tell Us

As at time of posting on Wednesday 12th March, the results of the WA Election have still not been concluded, even though the McGowan Government will undoubtedly be returned to power; still with a thumping majority. The seats which have been declared are:

Labor - 41

Liberal - 5

National - 4

Undecided - 9

Even with an 18.3% swing against the Labor Party, the Liberal Party has more than doubled its representation in the lower house, which sounds excellent until you realise they only hold five seats in total. That 18% swing against Labor did not correlate into an 18% swing to the Liberal Party; with more than half of those primary votes going to minor parties, and a chunk going to One Nation. Herein lies a problem for the Liberal Party, its hopes of being any kind of credible opposition remain in shreds, and even its hopes are the 2029 election look dim; which might very well extend the current run of Labor Governments in Western Australia to four or five terms.

The problem with the Liberal Party in Western Australia is... the Liberal Party. On election night; when being questioned by Sky News Australia, an absolutely deluded WA Liberal President Caroline Di Russo, still insisted that the result could still change and that they needed to wait for pre-polls and postal votes in order to get a better picture. In either a case of optimism through ignorance or delusion through entitlement, she outright refused to say how many seats she would be happy with for the WA Liberal Party at this election. Perhaps trying to being collegial, she repeated the line that it was "too difficult to say"; when in actual fact what I think that she meant to say is that it was "too embarrassing". However that is dependent on whether or not people in the Liberal Party can actually be embarrassed. Current indications point to 'no'.

Under every normal circumstance, an 18% swing away from Labor, should be ecstatic news for the Liberal Party. Even in defeat this should indicate that the results of the COVID election of 2021 were something of a statistical anomaly. Ms Di Russo could have played the line that Mark McGowan’s cult following has been hosed down and washed away, however even in defeat, there was still no kind of indication that she understood what had happened.

- This is the face of someone who didn't understand what happened, or why.

Admittedly I do not follow Western Australian Politics as closely as I follow it in my own state of New South Wales, but the manifestos on offer from the Liberal Party seemed to offer literally nothing that would have convinced most people that they would make a good government. Most voters when they go to the polls at least on some level, ask and should ask the question "what's in it for me?" or "what are you going to do for me?". Politics is the game upon which the contestation of ideas is fought, but Governance is the domain of the enactment of policy. In order to be able to enact policy, a political party needs at very least to have some kind of idea of policy.

The Liberal Party in its current form, simply refuses to offer much by way of policy at all. I do not know if the minders of the party realise this but the general public doesn't really watch Sky News Australia at all, and I no longer see any newspapers on the train which means that they are not getting opinion from print media. Increasingly what we are getting play out in politics, is the Liberal Party trying to weaponize American talking points as culture war ammunution, treating politics like a game, and offering nothing but obstruction. It isn't even that the general public are tired of this, it is more that the genuinely don't care.

The Liberal Party lost this election because they made no indication that they intended to serve the state of WA. They offered literally zero promises, or statements, or policies, or vision, on how they would improve anything. Unless people's grievances are so acute that they are forced into action, then no indication that a party is going to serve or improve anything means that they don’t deserve to win. I suspect that Ms Di Russo genuinely didn't understand the result at all and had no idea why the Liberal Party lost because she and the party generally, stand for absolutely nothing but their own entitlement.

And here's the rub. The Labor Party has been flirting with culture war issues of its own, and even lost its case at a referendum on the Voice because it couldn't successfully make the case of why it deserved the votes either. This WA Election is instructive as this is the first election in more than a century, across the Australian political landscape where independents scored more than 30% of the primary vote (and yes, I include One Nation in that because they are not functionally a political party). The 2025 Federal Election will probably fall roughly the same as in 2022 but how successful both sides are at responding to this problem, it might decide the long-term futures of both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. The National Party is fine because they don't need to assume very much beyond a policy mix for big farmers and landholders, but at least they have policy.

Horse 3446 - We Must Assume That AUKUS Is Worthless

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-27/scott-bessent-kevin-rudd-jim-chalmers-washington-defence-spend/104983632

Speaking to an embassy-hosted summit of heavy hitters from Australia's cashed-up superannuation sector, along with Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Ambassador Kevin Rudd, Secretary Bessent said plenty of nice things about Australia. He was suitably impressed by the investment power of Australia's enormous pool of retirement savings.

But Bessent also made three things clear. Donald Trump is determined to impose tariffs, there's no guarantee of an exemption for Australia, and linked to the trade threat is a requirement for allies to lift their defence spending.

"US security assurances and market access need to meet with stronger commitments from our allies to spend more on their collective security and to structure their economies in ways that reduce imbalances over time," Bessent said. Bluntly put, this is a warning to spend more on defence or risk losing the US security blanket and access to the US market.

- ABC News, 27th Feb 2025

The fact that the United States Secretary of Defence is speaking to anyone at all from the financial sector in Australia at all, is alarming. The fact that the United States Secretary of Defence is speaking to people from Australia's superannuation industry, is cause for a five-bell fire alarm. We have to assume that our so-called 'ally' is deeply untrustworthy and that the reason why he wants to speak to anyone in the superannuation industry at all, is because he wants to confiscate the money.,

The fact that the United States Secretary of Defence has made any threat at all, to any of its allies to lift their defence spending, is the sort of thing that the mafia does. If someone can actually tell me the difference between this and a protection racket being run by gangsters, then I'd like to know what it is.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers was sent to the United States, to make negotiations with presumably the United States' Department of Trade, on the subject of tariffs. The response from the Department of Trade was one of abject incompetence from an administration which may as well be functionally fascist at this point, but being sent to the United States' Department of Treasury and being told that if that if Australia wants to trade with the US, we have to spend a lot more on Defence, sounds like the sort of treatment that you'd give an enemy.

I mean, I thought that paying $368 billion for submarines which will never exist and that we will never ever see, in the downright disgraceful AUKUS fealty treaty would be enough but no. Just like the fat kid who beats up kids for their lunch money, the United States has made it obvious that their loyalty and protection to Australia is actually non-existent. 

I actually understand why that feckless and gormless idiot, Scotty From Marketing, signed over our sovereignty to America. As someone who knew that his time would be coming to an end and who would be given a cushy job for life as a consultant for News Corp or the IPA (like Mr Abbott was), then he knew that he would never face the consequences of his actions. It was very easy for that two-bit Pierrot to sell-out because it's really easy to sell the stuff that you don't actually own.

My hope is that Treasurer Chalmers and Ambassador Rudd make it clear that as a sovereign nation, what we spend on our defence must be a decision for our parliament which has been democratically elected, not an undemocratically appointed dogsbody from an entire ocean away. If Treasurer Chalmers and Ambassador Rudd didn't tell Secretary Bessent to "get stuffed", then they both need to resign immediately in favour of someone actually committed to the defence of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Because as the current US administration is in no uncertain terms trying to prove, is that the United States is both untrustworthy and unreliable as any kind of ally. Given that the United States wants to kick Canada out of the Five Eyes intelligence group for literally no other reason than having the audacity to refuse to fall at the feet of Donald Trump and kiss them, we must also assume that AUKUS is also functionally worthless. 

As demonstrated by the fact that the only time that Australia called for help from the United States in the East Timorese scuffle in 2006 which involved civil unrest and an attempted coup, the United States which had an aircraft carrier situated in the Timor Sea did squat-all, while the International Stabilisation Force was made up of troops from Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Portugal. We must assume that given the current administration's abject belligerence to its neighbours and its open imperial ambitions to conquer Greenland, Panama, Canada and Gaza, that if anything happened in Australia, that we would be dropped as quickly as a plate of cold vomit.

Horse 3433 - Not Because Of Obligation But Because We Love Big Brother.

One week after the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States as only the second President to serve non-consecutive terms, apart from pardoning everyone involved in the January 6th riots at the Capitol which included the murder of some and the permanent brain damage of other police officers (which kind of negates any and all rhetoric that he will ever say about supporting the police), and starting a series of trade wars, the one promise that Trump made which absolutely has not been kept was to end the war in Ukraine on Day One. 

That is probably a good thing.

Because given Trump's own hints to buy/invade Greenland, to vow to take back the Panama Canal, his statement that "anything could happen" in relation to starting a war with Iran, I can only assume that the statement that he wants to to end the war in Ukraine is to surrender it to Russia. Trump has for several years made statements that the United States should pull out of NATO because NATO nations don't pay their won way apparently, and his actual executive order which has pulled the United States out of the World Health Organisation, means that we should assume that as Commander-In-Chief that he personally sees the US Military as his possession and that he will use it if he feels that other nations do not show him personal fealty. This was last demonstrated in 2017 when he ordered cruise missiles to be sent into Syria; without really having a military objective for doing so.

So given all of this, a conversation which was held in a press gaggle on board Air Force One aught to leave the world at large slightly worried and Australia in particular very worried indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CfuMh87gA

Reporter: Can you tell us about your call with the King of Jordan today?

President Trump: It is a very good call; he's a friend of mine; I know him very well; I've gotten along for the over the years very well and he's done a wonderful job. He really houses, you know, millions of Palestinians and he does it in a very humane way, and uh, I compliment him on that but he really... Jordan's done an amazing job of housing largely pal-Palestinians and he's done it in a very successful...

Reporter: What was the subject of discussion was it (interrupted)

President Trump: Pretty much that. I said to him "I'd love you to take on more." 'Cause I'm looking at the whole Gaza Strip right now and it's a mess. it's a real mess. see You'd like Jordan

Reporter: See? You'd like Jordan to House people from (interrupted)

President Trump: I'd like him to take people. Uh.. I'd like Egypt to take people and meeting with talking to, uh, General el-Sisi tomorrow. Sometime I'm L(?) and uh I'd like Egypt to take people and I'd like Jordan to take people.

I could I mean  you're talking about probably a million and a half people and we just clean out that whole thing. It's you know, it's over the centuries that's had many many conflicts that site, and I don't know it's something has to happen but uh it's it's literally a demolition site right now. Almost everything's demolished and people are dying there so I'd rather get involved with some of the Arab Nations and build housing at a different location where they can maybe live in peace. 

Reporter: for change temporar or... (garbled - interrupted)

President Trump: Could be either it could be temporarily, could be long term.

- via Forbes, 25th Jan 2025

Under the previous Trump Administration, Donald Trump personally via executive order, changed the official stance of the United States and officially recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In no way did that ease tensions in the region and if anything emboldened Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to look for any excuse for Israel to 'defend itself' against Palestine. Netanyahu found that excuse on October 7th 2023, when Hamas led an attack on Israel by firing more that 4300 rocket; which killed 1139 people. Israel responded by repaying evil for evil and instead of an eye for an eye, has killed at least 53000 civilians and so that works out to be an an eye for two whole classrooms of now blinded children.

Now it should be pointed out that Hamas and Hezbollah are evil. This doesn't change the fact that Likud and the IDF as directed by Benjamin Netanyahu are also evil. I can not say how much I wish that Hamas, Hezbollah, Likud, and the IDF should all be exiled to a place in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Backing one evil side in a conflict against another evil side does not make either side less evil. The only thing that makes sense here is that the various parties find some sort of weird gratification in seeing innocent people pulped into chunky marinara. 

Mr Trump who is a deeply narcissistic fool, in saying that "we just clean out that whole thing" should be taken to mean that if "anything could happen" in relation to starting a war with Iran, then committing American troops to fight a war in Israel to clear Gaza is not off the table either. As Mr Trump's moral compass is such that the ends are bent in such a way that no matter which way it points, the points always point back to him, would have no moral qualms in turning ever more people into chunky marinara.

What does this mean for Australia though? We can rest assured and know that if the United States does decide to fight a war in Israel to clear Gaza, that not only will Australia be complicit in evil but active in sending troops to commit evil.

The United States Department of State, has this to say about Australia's role in being an obedient little lap dog with no back bone:

https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-australia/

Bilateral defense ties and cooperation are exceptionally close.  U.S. and Australian forces have fought side-by-side for more than one hundred years, in every major conflict since World War I, beginning with the Battle of Hamel in 1918.  In 2022, the United States and Australia marked the 80th anniversary of several key World War II battles, including the Battles of the Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal.  Moreover, 2021 marked the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Australia, New Zealand, and United States (ANZUS) treaty, Australia’s pre-eminent alliance, which enjoys broad bipartisan support.  Australia invoked ANZUS for the first time in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

- Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet, US Department of State, 23rd Jul 2024

Ever since January 26th 1788, Australia has basically never had any kind of foreign policy, with regards anything. Australians fought in the Crimean War, and the Boer War, and both the First and Second World War; because the various State Governments and then the Commonwealth Government rolled over and immediately became an obedient little lap dog with no back bone for big brother John Bull. The Pacific Conflict from 7th December 1941 changed our perspective a bit and after World War Two, Australians have fought in Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again, because the Commonwealth Government rolled over and immediately became an obedient little lap dog with no back bone for big brother Uncle Sam.

The signing of the AUKUS Treaty as far as I can tell, provides less than zero benefit to Australia; with the 'purchase' of imaginary submarines to the value of $368bn. That is a call on the Federal Budget of $350m per week, every week, for 20 years. If the rightist side of politics wants to complain about the cost of the ABC, then they need to repeatedly punch themselves in the head until they bleed because the yearly budget of the ABC is less than three weeks of the loyalty and fealty payments that we have committed to in tribute, for literally nothing at all. Australia is never ever ever going to see even a single submarine; and if you think that we are then not only do I have a bridge to sell you but you might also like to repeatedly punch yourself in the head until you bleed because that's the only way that any kind of sense will be beaten into you.

The question therefore is not whether or not Australia would send troops to fight a war to clear out Gaza until every last building has been levelled and to turn whomever is left into chunky marinara (because we absolutely would without question), but the consolation question of whether or not Australia is obligated to send troops.

The AUKUS Treaty between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, mentions literally nothing about either what happens in the even that any of them are attacked or if they choose to be the belligerent. The ANZUS Treaty of 1952, despite the fact that New Zealand unilaterally pulled out, is still in operation in perpetuity until the point that either Australia or the United States pulls out. Now I would assume that in the event that Australia was attacked by China or some other future great power, that the United States would drop us like a plate of cold vomit and pull out immediately. However, Australia as the obedient little lap dog with no back bone, would rush to the aid of the United States.

Article II of the ANZUS Treaty states that:

https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/house/committee/jfadt/usrelations/report/appendixb_pdf.ashx

Article II

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. 

- Article II, ANZUS Treaty, 29 Apr 1952

Now as previously mentioned, Australia invoked ANZUS for the first time in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; which was seen as a direct attack on United States' soil. So good, so far. However, the United States sending in troops to fight a war to clear out Gaza, is not of itself an "armed attack" which needs resistance. I can absolutely see Australians being sent in to murder unarmed Palestinians, on the basis that everything that moves will be assumed to be the enemy (this is the current stance of the IDF in practice), but the one consolation that we have before we do decide to get blood on our hands and lick it up and politely ask for more, is that it will not be because of legal obligation, but it is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. We love Big Brother.

Horse 3404 - On Senator Lidia Thorpes (in)Famous Outburst

"You are not our king. You are not sovereign.

You are not our king. You are not sovereign.

You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us - our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people. You destroyed our land. Give us a treaty. We want a treaty in this country. You are a genocidalist. This is not your land. This is not your land. You are not my king. You are not our king.

Fuck the colony. Fuck the colony. Fuck the colony."

- Senator Lidia Thorpe, to King Charles III

This outburst from Senator Lidia Thorpe to King Charles III, has made more of a pointed and directed statement than many many years of platitudes which meant well and did nothing, and undirected cries which have also done nothing. The immediate lie perpetrated by Sky News, Nine Ent Co., Seven West Media and the ABC, was that Senator Thorpe interrupted proceedings. We know that this is untrue because not only was the video there for all to see but the media demands that we reject the evidence of our own eyes and ears. The truth which is there for all to see, is that she waited until the official proceedings had concluded and waited for a quiet hush to descend upon the crown in the room. 

Yes, Senator Thorpe's comments were rude. However, as someone speaking on behalf of first peoples in Australia, rudeness is but a trifle in comparison to the directed genocide which happened in this country (starting at the charge rate of ninepence per head), the dispossession of land, and the trampling of original sovereignty which happened. If you have a problem with the word "fuck" but 9no problem with the systemic killing of people, then you are demonstrated ghoul whose moral compass was flushed down the toilet some time ago.

There are some interesting things of note about Senator Thorpe's outburst. The first thing is that she has a legal right to do this:

https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/bor16881wams2c2306/s5.html

Right to petition

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.

- Section 5, Bill of Rights Act 1688

When people tell you that we do not have a Bill of Rights in Australia, they are either ignorant or lying. We have at least the Bill of Rights 1688, the Scottish Claim of Right 1688, and various schedules in several pieces of legislation which includes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child; which are not just conventions which have been ratified but they have been accepted and passed as pieces of legislation at law. Under Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act 1688, Senator Thorpe has the express right to petition the King. Although she may have used language from a vulgar tongue, the politeness or impoliteness of language pales into insignificance in comparison with the claims of genocide, dispossession and the trampling of original sovereignty which she is holding out.

However, the outburst contains a problem at law, which although directed at the right person, is materially untrue. That is the use of the word "you". Who is "you"? It should be apparent to all that Charles personally did not genocide anyone. He has not personally stolen anything. He has not personally destroyed the land. I do not know to what degree Senator Thorpe is personally blaming Charles for the actions of the people who came before him. 

This is where the lovely legal concept of The Crown comes in. The Crown is that legal person, which both contains and owns the state. The idea of a separate legal person is what underpins the entire of corporate law and the Crown is Corporation Sole. The Crown has one share. The Crown owns itself. The Crown can not sell its share. Charles is not the Crown but the King; which means that he is in fact the current occupier of the office which acts as agent for the Crown. There are loads of rules surrounding that office but it should be noted that Charles as King is actually separate from the Crown as legal entity. Perhaps the most stark demonstration of this in action, was when Parliament also acting as agents for the Crown appointed the High Court at Westminster Hall to indict Charles I for tyranny. When Charles I's head was separated from his body on Jan 30th 1649, although he ceased to be the agent for the Crown, the person of the Crown did not die with him.

The fact that a corporate person does not die when its shareholders do, should be immediately obvious to anyone who has ever owned shares in a listed company. BHP and the Commonwealth Bank do not die when their CEO dies. It should also be immediately obvious to anyone who has ever owned shares in a listed company that not only does the company outlive the shareholders but that a corporate person has all kinds of legal abilities including to sue and be sued, to own real and unreal property, to appoint agents, and to enter into contracts.

This is where  I do not know to what degree Senator Thorpe is personally blaming Charles for the actions of the people who came before him. If Senator Thorpe is directing her comments to Charles III as King acting as agent for the Crown, then "you" is correctly attributed but if not, then not. If incorrectly attributed, then Senator Thorpe has made the same mistake as the United States Declaration of Independence, which apart from stating many things which are materially untrue, attributes those things to the person of King George III with many "He has" statements.

This same mistake was repeatedly made and owned, either through ignorance or racism (or both) during the referendum on The Voice To Parliament when a repeated refrain by opponents was that they shouldn't be held responsible for what happened in the past. The Persons who should be held responsible are the persons of the Crowns of the several states and the persons of the Crowns of the Commonwealth. Just like we can and should hold other corporate persons responsible for the things that they have done and even sue them for damages, not only can we and should we hold the Crowns responsible for the things that they have done, but that may very well mean equitable restitution for damages. James Hardie was taken to the Dust Diseases Tribunal many times; especially over its actions in Wittenoom. 

As for Senator Thorpe's demand for a treaty, although there are opponents to this who claim that the Crown of the Commonwealth can not enter into treaties with its own people, the treaty making power never specifies this.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/Constitution/chapter2#chapter-02_61

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

- Section 61, Australian Constitution Act 1900

As part of the executive functions of the Governor-General per Section 61, the Crown of the Commonwealth can enter into treaties with literally anyone it jolly well wants to. Section 61 provides no direction nor disability as to whom or what the Crown can enter into treaties with.

The Crown of the Commonwealth can enter into treaties with its own people, and the various State Constitutions are such that they practically have plenary powers; which means that they can also enter into treaties with their own people. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a straight up liar.

I also find in interesting but not unexpected, that Senator Pauline Hanson as self-appointed spokesperson for the 1930s, not only claimed that Senator Thorpe should be removed from Parliament for taking either invalid oath and was therefore ineligible to sit in Parliament, but also claimed that First Peoples should count as a foreign power.

As for the first of those claims, that is for the High Court to decide (which I suspect will be thrown out as a vexatious case); but it does kind of invite speculation about whether or not any and all people who want Australia to become a republic are also ineligible to sit in Parliament.

The second of those claims if we take it at face value, actually concedes the point that if First Peoples should count as a foreign power, then a Treaty absolutely does need to be discussed and concluded. Senator Hanson by default admits that she represents a foreign hostile power; thus confirming every single one of Senator Thorpe's outbursts as a valid complaint.

Aside:

I personally think that we should retain the monarchy in Australia. Yes I will confess some liking for the very big community which is the Commonwealth but by itself, that's no reason to do anything. No, the reason why I think that we should retain the monarchy in Australia, is that the alternative which will we be given is one in which the Grand Poobah will be elected.

Whatever the replacement for the Governor-General is, the people of Australia will want to elect them. Whenever you elect someone, that automatically implies a mandate for that person to act. The problem is that I do not really want that person to act. As it stands, the only time that anyone can remember the Governor-General acting was in the sacking of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. The part that of that story which is frequently neglected is that Governor-General stayed on Rupert Murdoch's estate on the weekend of October 4th and 5th 1975. This happens to fall right in the middle of the duration of Kerr's letters to the Palace which begin on August 14th.

I have no doubt that as Kerr was by that stage, a drunkard, and a very weak minded individual, as evidenced by his blithering in the letters to the Palace, that his mind had been made up for him by either Rupert Murdoch or Malcolm Fraser.

The very obvious danger about electing that same position, is that instead of having someone unsure about their constitutional powers and being loath to used them, we will now have someone with powers defined and a mandate to use them. I can guarantee that those powers can and will be weaponised to sack future governments which have been duly elected by the people. I hate that.

Horse 3398 - Australia's Part In Bombing Beirut

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZO8-XXf0ek

Lebanese officials say 22 people have been killed and 117 others injured in Israeli airstrikes on central Beirut yesterday evening.

There was no warning issued before the strikes which hit residential buildings in two densely packed neighbourhoods in Bachoura - a small Shia area in the capital.

This is the third time Israel has launched air strikes on the city outside of the suburb of Dahieh, where it has struck repeatedly.

Media outlets, quoting security sources, suggest the apparent target, Wafiq Safa, survived. Safa is a high-ranking Hezbollah official and close ally of Hezbollah's former long-term leader Hassan Nasrallah. 

Neither the Israeli military nor Hezbollah's media office have commented.

- BBC News, 11th Oct 2024/

Well I will.

Hamas, Hezbollah, the IDF, and Benjamin Netanyahu are all evil and I hate all of you. The quicker that all of these things are dismantled, that Netanyahu is exiled to the Marshall Islands, and the quicker that the endless cycle of death comes to an end, the better.

I will comment. My country has blood on its hands. We helped supply the bombs.

In a week which saw the Israeli Defence Force lobbing rockets and bombs at both Gaza and Lebanon, and which saw Sky News Australia's Sharri Markson meet with the co-morbid Psychopath and Sociopath In Chief, PM Benjamin Netanyahu (this man has no remorse for his actions, no empathy for the people that he has stated that he thinks are vermin, frequently displayed criminal tendencies, and whose moral compass was burnt to a crisp so long ago that he consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others), we have to come to the conclusion that not only is every single word coming out of both sides of parliament in Australia unreliable, but we are joyfully complicit in war crimes. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/11/us-made-munition-used-in-israeli-strike-on-central-beirut-shrapnel-shows

A US-made munition was used in a strike on central Beirut that killed 22 people and wounded 117, according to an analysis of shrapnel found by the Guardian at the scene of the attack.

The strike on Thursday night hit an apartment complex in the densely populated neighbourhood of Basta, levelling the apartment building and destroying cars and the interiors of nearby residences.

...

The Guardian found remnants of a US-manufactured joint direct attack munition (Jdam) in the rubble of the collapsed apartment building on Friday afternoon. Jdams are guidance kits built by the US aerospace company Boeing that attach to large “dumb bombs” ranging up to 2,000lbs (900kg), converting them into GPS-guided bombs.

The weapons remnant was verified by the crisis, conflict and arms division of Human Rights Watch and a former US military bomb technician.

“The bolt pattern, its position and the shape of the of the remnant are consistent with the tail fin of a US-made, Jdam, guidance kit for Mk80 series air-dropped munitions,” said Richard Weir, a senior researcher in Human Rights Watch’s crisis, conflict and arms division, after viewing a photograph of the fragment. The Mk80 series encompasses three classes of bomb, the smallest of which is 500lbs and the largest is 2,000lbs.

- The Guardian, 11th Oct 2024

The whole Mark 80 class of dumb bombs (yes, even the IDF's propaganda which says that they were using smart bombs was a total lie), has been in use since 1946; and started to see active service in the Korean War. The current Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAMs) are  also relatively dumb bombs; which the IDF has been deploying on civilians who have been defending themselves with tents and thoughts and prayers. Thoughts and Prayers are nominally useless against JDAMs, which is handy for the IDF as they continue to pummel the every loving cuss out of ordinary people until the streets flow with so much blood that Benny gets to have a chuckle.

Meanwhile, if you do even the most basic of perfunctory research, you find that Australia has played its part in the ongoing genocide of civilians like the pathetic little lap-dog that we are.

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/australias-ferra-to-continue-jdam-er-wing-kit-production-work-on-powered-jdam/155505.article

Boeing and Australia’s Ferra Engineering have signed a memorandum of understanding related to further Australian production of Joint Direct Attack Munition Extended Range (JDAM ER) wing kits, and will explore applications for a powered version of JDAM.

The MoU will see Ferra continue to produce the JDAM ER wing kit, with the partnership to be extended through 2028, says Boeing.

- Flight Global, 24th Oct 2023

Boeing are famously going through something of a reputational poo-brown patch; with doors and engines falling off their planes in mid-flight, and their Starliner space capsule program having so many missteps that it even failed at being a ferry service to the space station this year. Nevertheless, Boeing are still about to mysteriously get their people killing programs working like a well oiler meat grinder.

So what is Australia's part in this? Why not just ask Boeing?

https://www.boeing.com.au/news/2023/boeing-ferra-expand-precision-aerial-munition-partnership

BRISBANE, Oct 25, 2023—Boeing [NYSE: BA] and Australia industry partner Ferra Engineering signed a Memorandum of Understanding to continue production of Joint Direct Attack Munition Extended Range (JDAM ER) wing kits. The agreement also includes the intent to explore applications for Powered JDAM(opens in a new tab) — a long-range, low-cost and mass-producible JDAM derivative capable of travelling upwards of 300 nautical miles.

Brisbane-based Ferra is Boeing’s global supplier of the 500-pound JDAM ER wing kits. Under the memorandum, the partnership will be extended through 2028. The partnership aligns with the Australian Defence Force’s commitment to enhance sovereign weapons capability under the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance (GWEO) Enterprise and aligns with the AUKUS security partnership goal of advancing  trilateral defence capabilities.

- Boeing, 25th Oct 2023

I wonder what Ferra think of all of this:

https://ferra-group.com/capabilities/logistics-sustainment/

Ferra understands the need to provide higher value products and solutions to our customers. As part of our advanced manufacturing process, our role in the product life cycle doesn’t finish once the production product has left our organization.

Ferra has the capability to manage inventory and logistics on behalf of our customer. This has been delivered in a commercial and military environment.  

- Ferra Engineering, retrieved 12th Oct 2024

Now bear in mind that the identified shrapnel in Beirut is a piece of the Boeing JDAM; which means that as Ferra Engineering is Boeing's global supplier of the JDAM ER 500lb wing kit, that it had to have been made right here in Australia.

Isn't it funny. When Joe Hockey yelled at the auto-industry and told them to go away, they all did. Making cars in Australia is simply too hard. However, making parts and pieces to kill brown people? Well Australia is all for that because apparently it aligns with the AUKUS security partnership goal of advancing trilateral defence capabilities and enhancing sovereign weapons capability. Remember under the terms of AUKUS, we're not allowed to service our own F-35 aircraft but Israel is allowed to home-brew their own. Also under the terms of AUKUS, as the pathetic little lap-dog that we are, when Big Brother America wants to bomb the cuss out of brown people, we don't question it but comply like an evil evil little sycophant except that as a nation we're actually too stupid to even seek any kind of advantage. 

This is where your tax dollars are going. While America possibly is on the verge of lurching to the right as Donald Trump has repeatedly declared to deport people on day one, and as Israel actively pursues Benny from Cheltenham's personal goal of turning many thousands of people into chunky marinara because he must find joy in the suffering an deaths of people, what do we say? Nothing. Australia yet again has no foreign policy.

Horse 3354 - Eleventhly, Peter Dutton's Nuclear Energy Plan Is Stupid

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/nuclear-dutton-coalition-unanswered-questions-beak-rules/104000664

Yet when Dutton and his colleagues stood up before the media yesterday, they outlined a policy with many questions unanswered — including, most crucially, the actual cost of their nuclear rollout. The Coalition says it will reveal the cost down the track. But to leave unanswered such a crucial detail when the entire debate is centred around the cost of energy leaves the policy vulnerable and impossible to critically assess.

- Patricia Karvelas, ABC News, 20th Jun 2024

When an 18 year old schoolboy became the face of a push for nuclear power in Australia, my immediate suspicion was that there was something suspiciously suspicious about this. When Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton, made an announcement that it will be Liberal Party policy to have seven nuclear reactors in Australia by 2035, my immediate suspicion was that not only there was something suspiciously suspicious about this but that his benefactors like Gina Rinehart must probably own a uranium mine. When the Minerals Council of Australia also came out in favour of have seven nuclear reactors in Australia by 2035, my immediate suspicion was immediately quashed because I know know that there is nothing suspicious about this and that this is just pure raw naked business speaking.

However, the entirety of the 'debate' being pushed by the Liberal Party and their handlers at Sky News, is almost entirely a disinformation campaign which runs on nonsenseleum. Nonsenseleum is apparently a renewable resource as Sky News seems to be able to mine virtually limitless quantities of the stuff.

Therefore, in true Socratic fashion, let us ask: 'What is Nuclear?'

In the most basic terms, the world has not progressed much beyond the steam age. A steam engine works by setting a thing on fire, usually rocks, and then using that fire to boil water to turn it into steam, which we then ask to do work. A coal fired power station works by setting a thing on fire, which are rocks called coal, and then using that fire to boil water to turn it into steam, which we then ask to do work by spinning turbines which we can then use to make electric. A nuclear power station works by having spicy rocks which are always on fire, which are radioactive rocks called uranium and plutonium, and then using that nuclear fire to boil water to turn it into steam, which we then ask to do work by spinning turbines which we can then use to make electric. 

However, as fun as nuclear power is, there are a lot of things that the nuff-nuffs in the Liberal Party have either missed or are deliberately not telling you.

Firstly, despite what the Minerals Council of Australia wants to tell you, nuclear power is NOT renewable. Just like anything else which is in the ground, there is only a limited amount of stuff which is readily accessible. The spicy rocks in a nuclear reactor come from various uranium oxides; which are actually a finite resource. They will run out at some point.

Secondly, as steam engines, coal power stations, and nuclear power stations, are all basically kettles with spinny things attached; which we then use to make electric or do work with, then they need water to put in the kettle. The problem is that nuclear power stations need a lot of water. Therefore nuclear power stations must be located near large bodies of water. This poses a problem. Perhaps someone at the Liberal Party, maybe even cosplay cowboy Senator Matt Canavan could tell the city boys, Australia is an arid country. This means that water resources are limited. I know that if you are Barnaby Joyce that you can sell 80 Megalitres of water for a cheeseburger and a box of goon, but for everyone else who lives in the country, the fact that we do not have lots of water everywhere in Australia is a very real reality which makes itself known to be a very real reality, quite a lot of the time.

Thirdly, although there are such things as molten salt reactors which will sort of self-shutdown when they stop being molten, salty sea water is not generally compatible with nuclear reactors. The Fukushima Nuclear Reactor which went into meltdown and then shutdown, shut down because all the salty sea water from the sea got in there. That's really handy if you want to stop a nuclear reactor from reacting and stop making electric but most of the time, you do want it reacting and making electric. That means putting a nuclear in Australia not near the sea; which is easy because Australia is big but bad because Australia doesn't have other water where there is no sea.

Fourthly, the thing about building nuclear reactors is that they are very expensive to build. This is not necessarily a problem if you are just starting out building a whole country because you have just been bombed to the nines in a great world war (or bonus round in a second world war), but if you are not, then being expensive is bad. It is worse if you are a country starting from scratch. Not many people have that kind of money and private investors are unlikely to stump up the capital. This means that generally speaking, nuclear power plants rely heavily on government subsidies; which is bad if you are the Liberal Party and you have just spent 80 years trying to convince everyone that government shouldn't own anything ever, because communism will eat your babies and turn the white people into mutants or something.

Fifthly and speaking of turning babies into mutants or something, where do you put the spicy rocks once you are finished with them? The spicy rocks in a nuclear power station do not stay that particular kind of special spiciness forever and need to be put into a bin. We do not currently have a good enough bin for  the storage of radioactive waste. Australia does currently produces low-level waste when it makes nuclear medicines (one of the ironies being that you can cure some radiation with other different radiation) but there's not a lot of the stuff. Australia's only real nuclear medicine nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, currently does store nuclear waste at its own facility but as with every temporary measure, every temporary measure is always effectively permanent until a more permanent facility is completed. 

Sixthly, and related to fourthly, if private capital is not capable of stumping up the cash to build seven nuclear power stations, then government capital must be used. This is fine if they were to remain in government hands but given that the only Liberal Party policy which has been permanent is to sell every single thing in government hands that they possibly can to their criminal friends, then we must assume that the seven nuclear power stations including the ability to generate nuclear weapons absolutely will end up in private hands at some point. Why should we trust the character of people whom we do not yet know? 

Seventhly, where exactly would Australia store nuclear waste from 6 or 7 reactors? It's bad enough trying to convince the NIMBYs to put houses for people, from whom they might accidentally catch poverty from, in their backyard. Who wants nuclear waste from 6 or 7 nuclear reactors in their backyard? No-one.

Eighthly, although the spicy rocks do not stay that particular kind of special spiciness forever and need to be put into a bin, they still remain dangerous to human health for thousands of years. Australia can not just bury those spicy rocks in the ground because of a thing called the Great Artesian Basin. It is Great, which means that it is big. It is Artesian, which means that there is water under the ground from which most of the people not on the edge of Australia get their water from. It is a basin, which means that it is a big thing of water. Burying those spicy rocks under the ground in Australia, means that we would be poisoning the water supply for a very long time. When I poison the water supply; now everybody dead, then oops.

Ninthly, although the spicy rocks do not go boom and send spiciness everywhere most of the time, most of the time is still not all of the time. Events like Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl, or Fukushima, do not need to happen very often for the consequences to have very very long tails. If events like the disaster at Bhopal didn't involve spicy rocks and still are having consequences 40 years later, then a disaster which does involve spicy rocks will last longer. Also related is the fact that there are nefarious and nasty people in the world, who might want to make your spicy rocks go boom and send spiciness everywhere. I do not know what a directed terrorist attack on a nuclear power station would look like but I do know that you can't hide or move one very quickly. 

Tenthly, as it stands nuclear power stations supply about 11% of the world’s electric. Given that we are running out of other fossil fuel sources, that will put demands on Australia's uranium resources very quickly; an as nuclear energy is nominally about can be up to six times more expensive than renewable energy sources, this seems like the timeframe of 2035 is in fact too late to make any kind of discernable difference to get ahead of the future building costs.

Eleventhly, although the Liberal Party doesn't accept that climate change is a thing, insurance companies already think that current Liberal Party policy is complete junk. I tend to believe insurance companies who have a vested interest in spinning a profit due to contingent risks, than cosplay cowboys who can only see as far as the 2025 election. The awful truth is that due to the increasing impact of climate change which is in fact happening now, this means that rapid transition is needed. Even if we accept the Liberal Party's timeline, this means that the seven nuclear power stations are due to be completed in about 11 years' time. Development of renewable energy sources is happening now. The reason why the Liberal Party doesn't like renewable energy goes all the way back to the question at the beginning of this piece "does Gina own a uranium mine?" If the answer is "yes", which it is, then any and all sensible renewable energy policy must be destroyed immediately and forever.

As jack of no trade and master of no trade, and just an accountant which means that I have applied OCD to tell you what is wrong with your stupid proposal, when I can write a piece with the word 'eleventhly' in it,  then it is really really really really... stupid. Don't let an 18 year old be the spokesperson for your campaign because you look like a dill. Don't let Peter Dutton be the spokesperson for your campaign because you look like a dill. Look, just don't do it. It's dangerous. Stay Safe.