𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐆𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐎𝐑-𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐒𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐀 𝐆𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐎𝐍 𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐃. If you’re too lazy or disinterested to actually inform yourself about how executive power operates in this country, here’s the simplified version! The Governor-General CANNOT simply dismiss an elected Prime Minister or remove a govt because she considers it incompetent. If she attempted to do so without a compelling constitutional justification, the Prime Minister could advise the King to dismiss her instead. Under Australia’s constitutional conventions, the monarch would ordinarily act on the advice of the elected Prime Minister, not an appointed Governor-General. The Governor-General’s reserve powers are NOT a mechanism for removing a Prime Minister or govt simply because people disapprove of its performance. Those powers may arise in exceptional constitutional circumstances, including Parliament blocking supply, a Prime Minister losing the confidence of the House of Representatives and refusing to resign, or other serious constitutional crises. AND HERE IS THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION. In the circumstances involving parliamentary confidence or supply, the constitutional trigger must arise through PARLIAMENT, NOT PUBLIC DEMAND. Public anger, petitions, protests or demands on social media do not constitute a parliamentary vote of no confidence or a refusal of supply. THE PEOPLE REMOVE GOVERNMENTS THROUGH ELECTIONS. THEY DO NOT INSTRUCT THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL TO REMOVE THEM BETWEEN ELECTIONS. The Governor-General is not there to overturn an election result because sections of the public dislike the govt or consider it incompetent. POLITICAL DISSATISFACTION ALONE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIGGER. And no amount of shouting, demanding or abusing the Governor-General changes that.

Clear as mud: Climate agency admits its own reports are unreadable. It appears if you are an ordinary Australian trying to get your head around the complicated science of climate change, do yourself a favour: maybe don’t ask the govt agency set up to explain it to you. According to the CCA’s own analysis, the three reports published by the agency in the last financial year were all deemed “very difficult” for ordinary people to read including the CCA’s much publicised advice to the govt on its 2035 emissions reduction target. Perhaps this is the reason why Chris Bowen gets everything so spectacularly wrong? afr.com/policy/energy-and-cl…

Interesting stats… voronoiapp.com/people/Births…

Jim, your spending addiction is hurting Australians.

Albo’s Human Rights Commission is spending your taxpayer dollars hiring consultants to “help” answer questions at Senate estimates. Great value for money. Not.

It’s not often you get the opportunity to follow a former Treasurer on stage and pull apart the case they’ve just made. Wayne Swan told the The @FinancialReview Super & Wealth Summit that the CGT changes are 25 years overdue. I then joined Rebecca Zwier, John Bongiorno and Michael Fox to explain why we think they’ll have disastrous consequences for the economy. From individual shareholders and business owners to companies raising capital and the property market. I learned from Michael that even the local art market is feeling the pain... Investors are being pushed out of direct shares and into ETFs and other pooled structures to avoid tax rates as high as 82%. Meanwhile the ASX small cap market is a basket case - these changes will make it even harder for Australian businesses to attract capital and grow. All four panellists agreed on one thing... hiking CGT isn’t the solution to Australia’s housing and productivity problems. Thanks to @JoannaMather for leading a great discussion.

He makes it up as he goes along! Speaking in question time, the Albanese said he was not aware of the NSW govt funding when he claimed a $6m federal grant was to stop “raw sewerage” flowing into the Cooks River. “It was not correct to say that the federal grant would deal with the sewerage,” he said on Tuesday.

Labor has the wrong priorities & how can they keep getting everything so wrong!!! piped.video/shorts/STCW574qB… via @YouTube

So now the restructuring & redundancies are hitting our major energy retailers. Whilst many will no doubt celebrate this, 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬. EnergyAustralia, one of the country’s largest electricity retailers, has reportedly engaged global restructuring specialists Alvarez & Marsal and is preparing to cut around 150 jobs, representing nearly 7% of its workforce. Its customer base has declined by 163,000 accounts since 2022, while operating earnings before fair-value movements plunged 85.6% last year. Rising wholesale electricity prices, fierce competition for customers & volatile energy markets are putting enormous pressure on the business. And here’s what concerns me. When a major energy retailer is forced to restructure to this extent, the consequences don’t stop with the employees who lose their jobs. They raise broader questions about the financial sustainability of our energy market, the capacity of retailers to absorb rising costs & ultimately what those pressures mean for consumers. We have spent years being told that our energy transition would deliver cheaper, more reliable electricity. Yet households & businesses continue to face enormous cost pressures, and now we’re seeing significant financial strain within the companies responsible for supplying that electricity. 𝐀𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬. 𝐈𝐭 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 & 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. And when the businesses operating within that system are struggling, perhaps it’s time to ask whether the policies shaping the market are delivering what Australians were promised. Because celebrating the difficulties of an energy company might satisfy some ideological prejudices, but it does absolutely NOTHING to secure affordable, reliable electricity for the people who depend on it.

Labor can't control its spending and Australians are paying the price.

Yesterday in the parliamentary chamber, there were a number of reflections on Helen Haines following the horrific attack on her last week. I was particularly struck by the differences in the addresses delivered by @AlboMP & @AngusTaylorMP, as Prime Minister & Leader of the Opposition respectively. I’ve attached my assessment of both speeches, looking at their tone, focus, emotional appeal & underlying messages. When it comes to leadership style, I prefer Taylor’s approach & the message he delivered. "You will not break us. You will not silence us. You will not change us." ~ Angus Taylor 26.10.2026. He asks Australians to reflect on what we stand for & what we must defend, which goes to the very heart of who we are as a nation. Our democratic institutions, our freedoms, our respect for differences, our sense of fairness & our willingness to stand together in difficult times are not simply things we should celebrate. They are values we have a responsibility to uphold. And inherent in those values is how we treat one another. Civility, compassion & respect are not separate from defending our democracy. They are part of what makes it worth defending. When we understand what we stand for, we also understand how we ought to behave. But there is another dimension to statesmanship that I believe is equally important. The consistency between what a leader says & how that leader conducts themselves. A speech can be beautifully written, compassionate & inspiring, but its message carries considerably greater weight when those principles are reflected in the speaker’s behaviour. And that raises a worthwhile question that goes well beyond these two speeches: 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦? Ultimately, statesmanship is not measured by the words delivered at the parliamentary despatch box alone. It is also measured by the conduct that precedes & follows them. And that is a standard I believe Anthony Albanese, in particular, needs to reflect upon.

I have a great deal of respect for Sam Mostyn. Many don’t, but I do. Now, that doesn’t mean I agreed with some of the causes she supported before becoming Governor-General. My assessment of her is based on her performance in her current role. A role that is clearly anathema to a significant proportion of commenters on here, but I’m not revisiting that debate in this post. I follow the GG’s official Facebook page & I’m frequently astonished by just how much Mostyn manages to fit into a week. Her commitment to supporting charities, community organisations & the people who work tirelessly to make a difference is admirable. I’ll give you just two examples, although there are many more. Last week, in her capacity as Patron of the Australian Red Cross, she hosted an event at Admiralty House to launch the organisation’s new strategy. Yesterday, she visited Sydney Children’s Hospital in Randwick, spending time with nurses, doctors & other staff, as well as touring the hospital’s recently opened facilities. She also meet some of the young patients & their families. These engagements aren’t simply Sam Mostyn pursuing her personal interests. They are consistent with the ceremonial, representative & community responsibilities of the Governor-General. The Royal Family has a longstanding tradition of patronage & support for charities, hospitals & community organisations. As the King’s representative, the GG carries out similar responsibilities in an Australian context. 𝐒𝐨 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐦𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞? 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦!! The two comments I’ve highlighted are merely examples of what managed to slip through. The vast majority of comments on both posts were so vile that they appear to have been removed or hidden for being offensive, off-topic (& I think we can all work out what that means) or spam. Think about that for a moment. We have a GG supporting the Australian Red Cross & visiting a children’s hospital, yet some people apparently cannot restrain themselves from turning even these occasions into opportunities for personal abuse, hostility & political point-scoring. You don’t have to like Sam Mostyn. You don’t have to agree with her past positions. You don’t even have to approve of her appointment. But surely we can distinguish between legitimate criticism of a public official & the gratuitous vilification of someone simply carrying out the responsibilities of their office. And if we can no longer make that distinction, perhaps the problem isn’t Sam Mostyn at all. Perhaps it’s what we’ve allowed our standards of public behaviour to become. This is not the Australia I know & love. Nor is it the Australia I want us to become.

We had some good news today: his kidneys are fine so it’s just the Hyperthyroidism. His blood pressure was also down from last week. Still a bit high but his vet isn’t worried about that given the drop. Back next week for another blood pressure test & bloods again in 3-weeks. We start medication today for the thyroid. 🧡🧡

𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐀’𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐇𝐒 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐑 𝐁𝐀𝐂𝐊𝐒 𝐄𝐔 𝐅𝐓𝐀. 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐏𝐑𝐈𝐒𝐄, 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐏𝐑𝐈𝐒𝐄. This wouldn’t be a case of commercial self-interest taking precedence over the national interest, would it? Arafura stands to benefit from the removal of tariffs on critical minerals. Good for Arafura & its shareholders, including Rinehart. But what about Australian farmers, food producers & other industries facing considerably less favourable terms? And what about the binding climate commitments embedded in what is supposed to be a free-trade agreement? There’s nothing wrong with a business advocating for its own commercial interests. But those interests shouldn’t be confused with what’s necessarily in the best interests of the country. 𝐀 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬. And then there’s One Nation. A party that has spent years railing against global agreements, international obligations & anything it considers a threat to Australian sovereignty. Yet just days ago, Barnaby Joyce criticised the Coalition for not backing this & suggested ON was open to considering the EU free-trade agreement, despite its binding climate commitments. Which raises an interesting question. 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐎𝐍’𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬? 𝐈𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲? Particularly when Rinehart, whose rare earths investment stands to benefit from the agreement, & she the core backer of ON. It will be interesting to see whether ON’s opposition to international climate commitments remains quite so immovable when significant commercial interests are involved. theaustralian.com.au/nation/… via @australian

Stop These Things' Weekly Round Up: 25 October 2026 stopthesethings.com/2026/10/…

In years to come historians will look back on this with astonishment. 𝐒𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫-𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐲. At Senate estimates, the Australian Human Rights Commission confirmed that discrimination protections originally introduced for breastfeeding women also extend to biological males who identify as women & medically induce lactation. Questioned by Liberal senator @SenatorBlyth Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody confirmed that a biological male who induces lactation would be entitled to the same legal protections as anyone else breastfeeding, including workplace protections. Dr Cody was also questioned about the NSW govt’s decision to retain references to “women” & “mothers” in workplace breastfeeding policies, rather than replace them with gender-neutral terms such as “lactating parent”. She was unable to say whether that decision complied with the commission’s guidelines & took the question on notice. Meanwhile, AHRC president Hugh de Kretser admitted the commission had spent taxpayers’ money engaging a communications consultant to help prepare for Senate estimates. He undertook to provide the cost. It raises some fundamental questions about the interpretation of sex-based protections, the recognition of biological differences & the priorities of our publicly funded institutions. theaustralian.com.au/nation/… via @australian

The @NationalCenter filed a shareholder proposal with @Starbucks about its support for genocidal slave labor in Communist China. Stay tuned. @FreeEntProject

Back to the vet today. Blood pressure, results of further testing, the treatment plan & start medication. He’s not been that well the last two days & I’m about to shove another calmative down his little throat 😑

Good morning my lovelies

Another Victorian business forced to close. After 32 years my favourite Japanese restaurant Ocha in Hawthorn is no longer. 🥲🥲🥲 “Sadly, the world has changed. The continuing economic pressures, rising costs and uncertainty have made it increasingly difficult for small, independent restaurants like ours to survive. Despite everything we have put into Ocha, we have reached a point where we simply cannot continue as we have for so many years. This has been an incredibly difficult and heartbreaking decision for us.” Michelle & Yasu
Ocha Japanese Restaurant

Hanson won’t talk but host gets a mouthful. “Make sure you add the part where she thinks you’re a dickhead,” Mr Ashby wrote.” 𝐼 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝐴𝑠ℎ𝑏𝑦 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟. One Nation leader Pauline Hanson pulled out of a scheduled television interview at the last minute and her ­national director called a respected journalist a “dickhead”, in the populist party’s latest clash with media. Senator Hanson was scheduled to appear on News24 on Monday but cancelled her ­appearance, host Andrew Clennell said. Clennell had labelled a One Nation cartoon video “unhelpful” amid warnings about political violence and rhetoric after last week’s car attack on independent MP Helen Haines that left her having to have both legs amputated. One clip had potential Coalition leaders ­literally stabbing each other in the back, while another depicted Senator Hanson running over Anthony Albanese and left-wing senator Lidia Thorpe with a bus. “After your weekend comments suggesting the cartoons incite violence, the boss thinks you’re a dick again,” read a text message apparently sent by One Nation national director James Ashby to Clennell. “She’s not interested in talking to you at the moment.” Clennell then appeared to seek to confirm that he would say on the show that Senator Hanson had cancelled a scheduled interview. “Make sure you add the part where she thinks you’re a dickhead,” Mr Ashby wrote. “That’ll help the audience understand why.” Mr Ashby did not deny the text message exchange took place when contacted. Mr Ashby was, until August, Senator Hanson’s chief of staff, before he was elevated to be ­national director of her party. theaustralian.com.au/nation/… via @australianp