Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Australian Politics General...

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
Ok, well adding a cost to production in Australia, that other countries weren't adding, was always going to be problematic, as Chris is finding out at the moment.
Australia is a high cost country already, continually adding to that cost base has to have a flow on effect, one way or another, basic business market rules.
Chris has introduced an emissions penalty system and is already having to tip in money, to get the companies to comply, all these ideas sound great but actually getting them to work without negative ramifications generally proves difficult, as the nickel miners are finding out.

They will be required to drop their emissions yet can't even compete at the moment, because our competitors aren't agreeing to drop their process emissions and toxic discharges and the world ruling bodies told Australia tough $hit when we asked for dispensation for our cleaner more expensive product.

So it might be nice standing on a wooden crate in a park telling everyone how fantastic we are, but if everything is shut down because we aren't competitive and people can't afford food and shelter, they wont be happy.
Politics 101, which is playing out as we speak. The white collar elites don't have a problem they can afford all this touchy feel good social change, it is the unwashed masses who suffer and can't afford the rent the increase in power bills, the increase in food bills, they're the ones that are worried.
Click to expand...

Nope it was to transition to renewables in an orderly way thanks to Abbott and 10 years of the LNP failing to have an energy policy (remember the NEG) its now a dogs breakfast.

Great politics by the LNP leaving Labor on the hook as everything falls over.

If they could get to renewables then energy would be far cheaper / more reliable (not reliant on 21 days of fuel supply plus opportunities for manufacturing) than those that are late changing over.

But I think we can both agree on one thing it's likely to end up in a screaming heap with no lights on.
 
IFocus said:
Nope it was to transition to renewables in an orderly way thanks to Abbott and 10 years of the LNP failing to have an energy policy (remember the NEG) its now a dogs breakfast.

Great politics by the LNP leaving Labor on the hook as everything falls over.

If they could get to renewables then energy would be far cheaper / more reliable (not reliant on 21 days of fuel supply plus opportunities for manufacturing) than those that are late changing over.

But I think we can both agree on one thing it's likely to end up in a screaming heap with no lights on.
Click to expand...
THis is the problem with your one eyed view on everything, you are trying to infer Labor has installed all the renewable energy, when in fact there has been a reduction in the deployment of renewables since they attained office.

Australia has been at the forefront of renewable grid penetration for the last 5-7 years, but you go right ahead and re write history, as usual.
To infer nothing has been done pre this term of Govt is mind numbingly dumb and immature.

The only ones that don't have a plan is Labor, as usual they lead with the lip and set a target in stone, with no plan or idea how to achieve it.

Now they have a situation where coal suppliers and generators can no longer get funding, so the tax payer is having to bail them out and pay them to keep running. Which the coal generators are using to play the Govt, by bringing forward their closing dates and putting more fear and panic up Chris and his target.
Not only that, but because the coal generation sector can't get funding and are falling to bits, the Govt now not only has to fund them, they are having to underwrite the renewable sector to put in replacement generation ad hock to stop the system falling over.

But as usual Labor create a mess with a brain fart, then look around for someone else to blame, is there any wonder they have trouble staying in office, they should get cohesive plans together before shooting from the lip. As can be seen by the polling the public aren't stupid.

I was extremely hopeful Albo would change things and take a more measured and central approach sadly it is starting to look like I'm going to be disappointed.
Fortunately for him the opposition is unelectable, but that is good luck, not good management.
Anyway, hopefully it all works out, we 5 1/2 years to go untill 2030, so plenty of time for things to get worse.
 
Last edited:
Although I am of the opinion that J Howard was one of our better Prime Ministers, he was after all, still just a politician.
Tom Dusevic writing in the The Australian shows how so often Politicians are loose with the truth and have a hide like a rhinocerus.

Labor is going full throttle on industry policy, in defiance of the advice of the old policy establishment, the wreckage of our lost years of protection and its own history. Albanese does not need JW Howard, of all people, to remind him of Bob Hawke’s legacy in dismantling the tariff wall. As a side note, a decade ago the Productivity Commission found the transitional assistance to moochers Ford, Holden and Toyota, with their eyes on the exit, was $30bn between 1997 and 2012. John Winston was prime minister from 1996 to 2007.
Click to expand...
Mick
 
I think it's great we finally have an industry policy. Lots of us here have called for one.

Every other country does it.

Hopefully the Libs support it and improve it when they get in next. They started something with the pharma policy so can't see why they wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
mullokintyre said:
Although I am of the opinion that J Howard was one of our better Prime Ministers, he was after all, still just a politician.
Tom Dusevic writing in the The Australian shows how so often Politicians are loose with the truth and have a hide like a rhinocerus.

Mick
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot on, all western leaders from the early 1980's relaxed the requirement for manufacturing in Australia, it was driven by globalisation and outsourcing manufacturing to the cheapest labour countries, then that was followed by outsourcing Government services to the private sector.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out the common denominators, private sector increasing profits and Governments reducing accountability and responsibilty, while increasing personal opportunity.
A sad but obvious conclusion and it isn't party specific.
Just my opinion.
 
IFocus said:
Nope it was to transition to renewables in an orderly way thanks to Abbott and 10 years of the LNP failing to have an energy policy (remember the NEG) its now a dogs breakfast.
Click to expand...
It goes back a lot further than that.

The first real cracks appeared during Menzies' last term circa 1965 when a view was embraced by the federal government that Australia had effectively unlimited mineral resources and ought exploit them.

That lead, virtually immediately, to the establishment of the "dig and ship" model in WA plus a decision to not fully complete the Snowy scheme. The argument for the latter being based largely on the "inexhaustible" coal in Victoria and NSW along with a traditional conservation type argument.

Over the next ~20 years successive governments both Labor and Liberal scrapped plans for nuclear energy*, decided to offshore 30% of our manufacturing, established large scale coal exports, established gas exports, linked Australian liquid fuel prices to import parity and in practice scrapped almost all further hydro development nationally apart from that already underway.

Since then, the past 40 years, we've basically been coasting on those decisions watching the inevitable unfold. Plenty of tinkering along the way yes, but the key big picture decisions go back many decades. :2twocents

*Noting that I'm not an advocate for nuclear energy in Australia on economics grounds but nonetheless, the decision to abandon it was symbolic in the context of coming amidst a broad shift from technology, science, manufacturing etc to the "dig and ship" economy. The rejection of nuclear was of more symbolic than practical consequence in that context, but it's nonetheless part of the overall shift that took place.
 
sptrawler said:
THis is the problem with your one eyed view on everything, you are trying to infer Labor has installed all the renewable energy, when in fact there has been a reduction in the deployment of renewables since they attained office.
Click to expand...

Haven't inferred anything Labor haven't been in power long enough to actually do much. Just making the point that Abbott killed any sort of action, Turnbull couldn't get the NEG up killed by the right again, Morrison gave up and told everyone technology will solve the issue, now Dutton is anything but renewables but nuclear is OK .

10 years of no energy policy, that's got nothing to do with Labor.

LNP are currently going very hard against new wind turbines etc.

Realistically best thing Labor can do is lose the next election so can Dutton save Australia, sarcasm.
 
IFocus said:
Haven't inferred anything Labor haven't been in power long enough to actually do much. Just making the point that Abbott killed any sort of action, Turnbull couldn't get the NEG up killed by the right again, Morrison gave up and told everyone technology will solve the issue, now Dutton is anything but renewables but nuclear is OK .

10 years of no energy policy, that's got nothing to do with Labor.

LNP are currently going very hard against new wind turbines etc.

Realistically best thing Labor can do is lose the next election so can Dutton save Australia, sarcasm.
Click to expand...
The LNP, where just facilitating renewables to push the coal generators off the grid and making them either adapt or lose more market share.

The building of Snowy 2.0 and Kurri Kurri was to put further pressurd on the coal generators, the fact they didn't push a target, made it difficult for the coal generators to complain and ask for assistance.

That Labor has made a target, puts the pressure on the Govt to meet that target, so now as I said the Government is having to subsidise the coal generators, the renewables and heavy industry, to try to meet the target.
It's very noble but it is going to be ridiculously expensive, because there is very little incentive for heavy industry to comply ATM.

10 years of no energy policy has got us to the forefront of renewable grid penetration as I've already said, if you moved away from the political tamborine bashing, you would actually realise Australia has been at the forefront of pv inverter integration, as weird faults were happening when inverters wouldn't play nice with each other, Australia had to design modifications to make them work together.

The other thing that has to be taken into account is renewables have only become viable in a the last 10 years, as I pointed out when one of the worlds largest solar manufacturing plants that exported panels,was shut down in Sydney the last time Labor was in office, so to say nothing has happened in the last 10 years is just a silly statement.

I think Labor have arrived at the right time, as I think the transition will now accelerate, but I think it will cost a motza more than it otherwise would have cost, but it will all end at the same finishing point because our society can't survive without electricity.

It is just different ways of getting to the same outcome, as I've also said before, IMO renewables will be used until they reach their maximum sensible output, then it will either be enough or something else will be added to the mix.
I as you and most other posters with a background in electrical generation agree, it doesn't make sense to go to nuclear until you have to and you may never have to.
Time will tell.
 
sptrawler said:
The LNP, where just facilitating renewables to push the coal generators off the grid and making them either adapt or lose more market share.

The building of Snowy 2.0 and Kurri Kurri was to put further pressurd on the coal generators, the fact they didn't push a target, made it difficult for the coal generators to complain and ask for assistance.

That Labor has made a target, puts the pressure on the Govt to meet that target, so now as I said the Government is having to subsidise the coal generators, the renewables and heavy industry, to try to meet the target.
It's very noble but it is going to be ridiculously expensive, because there is very little incentive for heavy industry to comply ATM.

10 years of no energy policy has got us to the forefront of renewable grid penetration as I've already said, if you moved away from the political tamborine bashing, you would actually realise Australia has been at the forefront of pv inverter integration, as weird faults were happening when inverters wouldn't play nice with each other, Australia had to design modifications to make them work together.

The other thing that has to be taken into account is renewables have only become viable in a the last 10 years, as I pointed out when one of the worlds largest solar manufacturing plants that exported panels,was shut down in Sydney the last time Labor was in office, so to say nothing has happened in the last 10 years is just a silly statement.

I think Labor have arrived at the right time, as I think the transition will now accelerate, but I think it will cost a motza more than it otherwise would have cost, but it will all end at the same finishing point because our society can't survive without electricity.

It is just different ways of getting to the same outcome, as I've also said before, IMO renewables will be used until they reach their maximum sensible output, then it will either be enough or something else will be added to the mix.
I as you and most other posters with a background in electrical generation agree, it doesn't make sense to go to nuclear until you have to and you may never have to.
Time will tell.
Click to expand...


I thought it was the states that were doing the heavy lifting.
 
IFocus said:
I thought it was the states that were doing the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...
They were, until a target was set, now check out how much Federal cash is being poured in.
No doubt it will make the transition quicker, whether it makes it better, time will tell.
As we mentioned a couple of years ago logistics and costs have gone stupid, so throwing money doesn't mean it reduces time frames, but when you put a date on a target you are setting yourself up.
You know that from experience.
 
IFocus said:
Haven't inferred anything Labor haven't been in power long enough to actually do much. Just making the point that Abbott killed any sort of action, Turnbull couldn't get the NEG up killed by the right again, Morrison gave up and told everyone technology will solve the issue, now Dutton is anything but renewables but nuclear is OK .
Click to expand...
Sure but to be balanced Rudd and Gillard gave us the dash for gas and that sure hasn't ended at all well. And they only did it to appease the Greens who wanted it at the time.

Going back further, Howard and Keating both had the same policy - the plan is not to plan. Otherwise known as "market will fix it". Another one that hasn't ended well.

Hawke, keen to obtain the "green" vote (noting the Greens as such weren't yet a party) killed off hydro development in practice nationally via a series of steps best known for having occurred in Tasmania but ultimately stopping the lot nationally in practice.

Fraser approved the first gas exports.

Whitlam did the deal to offshore manufacturing.

McMahon in practice ended the nuclear project.*

Menzies stopped full development of the Snowy scheme as originally envisaged and allowed the large scale export of unprocessed minerals to commence, both during his last term.

That's every PM since 1963** apart from Holt, McEwen and Gorton who were only in office for 5 years between them.

Like most things, doing the wrong thing for a short period won't do any major damage but keep doing it and it ends badly. Hence the mess we have today. So any suggestion that it's all the doing of any one party isn't backed by history, in practice both played a major role.

*I don't disagree with that decision as such, although it did symbolically mark the shift from science, technology etc to "dig and ship" and in that context I'll argue it's bad albeit symbolically more than practically.

**Menzies was PM well before that but it was his last term in office that the relevant decisions were made.
 

Life after the lodge: Scott Morrison details fall out from political life.​

April 28, 2024.
 

Scott Morrison ‘should not have been PM’ if his mental health struggles are ‘true’​

April 28, 2024.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Sure but to be balanced Rudd and Gillard gave us the dash for gas and that sure hasn't ended at all well. And they only did it to appease the Greens who wanted it at the time.

Going back further, Howard and Keating both had the same policy - the plan is not to plan. Otherwise known as "market will fix it". Another one that hasn't ended well.

Hawke, keen to obtain the "green" vote (noting the Greens as such weren't yet a party) killed off hydro development in practice nationally via a series of steps best known for having occurred in Tasmania but ultimately stopping the lot nationally in practice.

Fraser approved the first gas exports.

Whitlam did the deal to offshore manufacturing.

McMahon in practice ended the nuclear project.*

Menzies stopped full development of the Snowy scheme as originally envisaged and allowed the large scale export of unprocessed minerals to commence, both during his last term.

That's every PM since 1963** apart from Holt, McEwen and Gorton who were only in office for 5 years between them.

Like most things, doing the wrong thing for a short period won't do any major damage but keep doing it and it ends badly. Hence the mess we have today. So any suggestion that it's all the doing of any one party isn't backed by history, in practice both played a major role.

*I don't disagree with that decision as such, although it did symbolically mark the shift from science, technology etc to "dig and ship" and in that context I'll argue it's bad albeit symbolically more than practically.

**Menzies was PM well before that but it was his last term in office that the relevant decisions were made.
Click to expand...
And on the same theme of Govt intervention, the industry super funds are influencing decisions of companies on behalf of the Govt's through their voting power, when in reality they should be voting for what is in the members best interest IMO, or abstaining from voting if there is a conflict of interest.
As the funds get bigger their sway on business decisions becomes greater.

By the way, I do not hold Woodside.

www.abc.net.au

An unlikely marriage brought down the climate plan of Australia's biggest oil and gas company. It's already on the rocks

Climate activists want Woodside leaders to feel some consequence for what they say the company is inflicting on the world, but investor activists have a slightly different point of view.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au


Woodside made its money, $US1.7 billion net profit after tax last financial year, primarily by taking oil and gas out of the ground and selling it to customers around the globe.

While the transition to net zero by 2050 will require some changes, it's planning to "thrive through the energy transition" by selling gas as a "transition fuel".
The company has committed to reach net zero by 2050, is slowly reducing its emissions, and has taken feedback onboard to set a goal around contributing to helping its customers shrink their carbon output too.

But a majority of its shareholders now believe it's not moving quickly enough – and it's created an unlikely marriage, which is already on the rocks.

One of those companies is Australian Super, which held a 4.52 per cent stake in Woodside at the end of June last year – one of the larger holdings in its portfolio.

"After a lot of consideration we've decided that we still have some ongoing concerns about Woodside's plan to be net zero by 2050, so based on that we've decided to vote against [the climate plan] and we will continue our discussions with the company," the company's head of Australian equities Shaun Manuell told a parliamentary inquiry into greenwashing earlier this week.
 
I wanted to put this here. Yes it is an indictment of Joey B, but that said, he had only said the quiet part of loud.

This is how politics works, whether Joe or any of our own politicians. IOW if anyone believes anything, especially the underlying motive, of any politician... well you're a bloody idiot.

 
IFocus said:
LNP are currently going very hard against new wind turbines etc.

Realistically best thing Labor can do is lose the next election so can Dutton save Australia, sarcasm.
Click to expand...
They are trying to jam these things in Wollongong and I think Newcastle beaches. It would be a disaster if they get positioned where they want to put them. Absolute lunacy.
 
moXJO said:
They are trying to jam these things in Wollongong and I think Newcastle beaches. It would be a disaster if they get positioned where they want to put them. Absolute lunacy.
Click to expand...
Oh and I think the company involved in the wind farm(Oceanex) were also involved on this:
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2829445/port-wave-generator-could-be-on-the-move/

It was wrecked in big surf then stayed there for a decade. Obviously they smelled a bigger deal and finally did something.
The offshore wind is most likely for bhp not actual Australians.
Wollongong is full of corrupt little dckheads that sell out their constituents.
 
moXJO said:
Oh and I think the company involved in the wind farm(Oceanex) were also involved on this:
https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2829445/port-wave-generator-could-be-on-the-move/

It was wrecked in big surf then stayed there for a decade. Obviously they smelled a bigger deal and finally did something.
The offshore wind is most likely for bhp not actual Australians.
Wollongong is full of corrupt little dckheads that sell out their constituents.
Click to expand...
But isn't that much the same everywhere these days.
 

Similar threads

Garpal Gumnut
US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
5K
divs4ever
divs4ever
farmerge
Lawyers
Replies
16
Views
907
wayneL
wayneL
mullokintyre
Examples of stupidity of government at all levels
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
mullokintyre
mullokintyre
Garpal Gumnut
Mr. Trump (The Donald) To Win in 2024
56 57 58
Replies
1K
Views
32K
Smurf1976
Smurf1976
frugal.rock
Israel committing Genocide in Gaza
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
rederob
rederob
Top