Labor True Believers, Political Analysis and Satire

23/03/2026

Power prices set to fall as renewables ease pressure on the grid

(By Sophie Vorrath)

Electricity prices are set to fall across Australia’s main grid, with the regulator pointing to increased renewable energy and storage as key drivers – though global risks remain.

The cost of electricity looks set to fall for households and businesses in all of Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM) states, the regulator has advised, as wholesale power prices are eased down by reduced volatility and bigger contributions from wind farms and big batteries.

In a draft decision published on Thursday afternoon, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) is proposing reductions in the Default Market Offer (DMO) in New South Wales, southeast Queensland and South Australia.

If adopted, the AER says DMO annual prices for residential customers would fall by between 1.3 per cent and 10.1 per cent, while small business prices would decrease by between 7.6 per cent and 21.2 per cent, depending on the region.

The proposed power price cuts – a final determination will be made in May – suggest a welcome downward pressure on grid electricity prices amid a fresh flurry of rate rises and as the cost of petrol and gas head in the opposite direction fuelled by the threat of a new global oil crisis.

Just last week the Victorian pricing regulator made a similar call for that state, flagging cuts in all five of the state’s electricity distribution zones that could cut household energy bills by nearly $50 in the coming financial year and by around $170 a year for small businesses.

For the AER states, this week’s draft determination also introduces the Solar Sharer Offer, the federal government’s new opt-in electricity plan that includes three hours of free usage during the middle of the day to help households take advantage of abundant solar – and to help the grid to soak up excess energy.

The AER says the free usage periods are proposed to be 11am to 2pm in New South Wales and southeast Queensland (local time), and 12pm to 3pm in South Australia (local time).

All told, the broad promise is that households and businesses are set for some welcome relief as a growing share of renewables and storage put downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices.

“The reductions reflect easing costs across parts of the electricity supply chain, particularly wholesale energy where we’ve seen falling electricity contract prices, reduced spot price volatility, and increased output from wind and battery generation,” AER chair Clare Savage said on Thursday.

“Retailers have also reported lower retail operating costs, while reductions in the cost of environmental schemes have also had a positive impact on reducing prices.”

But Savage adds a less promising postscript that the AER is keeping a close eye on global energy market developments tied to the latest conflict in the Middle East.

“While Australia continues to invest in new sources of renewable energy, our electricity system remains significantly exposed to the international price of fossil fuels such as coal and gas,” Savage adds.

“The wholesale cost of electricity, included in this draft decision, was calculated prior to the commencement of the current conflict in the Middle East. Since the conflict began, we have seen increases in the price of forward wholesale electricity contracts for 2026-27.

“However, even at these recent elevated levels, these forward contracts are still currently lower than last year, and well below the levels seen during the 2022 energy market events.

“We will continue to monitor this closely before making our final determination of the Default Market Offer in May.”



Republished from Renew Economy, 20 March 2026

— Pearls and Irritations

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.

23/03/2026

Pope

23/03/2026

Australians are ‘aggrieved’ with Liberal party and 'looking for a change', Hume says

The Liberal party’s deputy leader, Jane Hume, says the South Australian election result has sent a message to her party: that the public are “looking for a change”.

The state election result over the weekend showed One Nation was able to turn some of its polling into seats in the upper and lower houses. Some within the Liberals have called the polling showing One Nation ahead of the Coalition as a “protest” or “middle finger” voting.

Hume told Sky News earlier this morning her party will “not be responding either to the left, to the right of one party or another”.

She says the Coalition will have to offer up a better policy platform to win back voters at the next election.

I think the biggest message for the federal Coalition is that Australia is looking for change. They are rightly aggrieved right now.

They are looking for solutions to their high energy bills, to an out of control immigration policy where they want sensible settings, and they want their standard of living improved and their way of life restored, I think that that is not an unacceptable or unreasonable request.

Hume says Ashton Hurn, the SA Liberal leader, fought valiantly, “after a scandal-ridden previous Coalition opposition in South Australia”

Guardian Live

23/03/2026

23/03/2026

𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐔𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞

Why does an energy superpower like Australia still depend on global fossil fuels?
By Huon Hoogesteger for Renew Economy

As Forrest Gump says, “I may not be a smart man, but…”
Why is one of the most energy-rich countries in the world still exposed to global fuel markets?

Australians should have the cheapest, most abundant and most reliable energy in the world. And yet our energy consumers are about to cop another massive price hike.

Read More https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-does-an-energy-superpower-like-australia-still-depend-on-global-fossil-fuels/

22/03/2026

Climate denial has deep roots in Coalition politics

(Chas Keys, Pearls and Irritations)

From Howard to Abbott, senior Coalition figures have repeatedly dismissed climate science – favouring belief over evidence and weakening public debate.

What is it with conservative ex-Prime Ministers of Australia when they get in front of Nigel Lawson’s misleadingly and cynically titled Global Warming Policy Foundation – an avowedly sceptical forum on matters of climate change?

In 2013 John Howard spoke at the Foundation in London, pouring cold water on climate change and noting that he felt “instinctively” that claims about the future impacts of climate change were exaggerated. But instinct, or gut feeling (or political preference), are surely not what counts. What counts are evidence and reasoning.

Howard in his speech in 2013 went on to say that those who argued that climate change might be taking us in problematic directions were “sanctimonious”, had “nakedly political agendas” and were trying to “intimidate” politicians. Not only were they wrong, he was saying, they were self-serving.

A few years later, Tony Abbott used the same forum to push further his 2009 statement that ‘Climate science is crap’. This time he argued that warming is probably a good thing, partly because of its potential positive effects on plant growth and therefore on agricultural productivity, and partly because cold snaps kill more people around the globe than do heatwaves. And he made the statement that photographs of Manly Beach over the past century – presumably mostly ‘happy snaps’ of people enjoying themselves – provided no evidence of sea level rise. Could they really have been useful in measuring anything?

Abbott was blind to science, and to any sense of the future. He simply expressed his preference with the most simplistic of justifications. His photographs of Manly Beach could not have indicated that sea level has risen. To imply otherwise would lower the intellectual level of the discussion alarmingly.

Where does one start on such statements as Howard’s and Abbott’s? First, it must be noted that global average temperatures have, without doubt, increased over the past 150 years and the momentum for further increases appears well established. The fact that average sea levels have increased over that time period, the rate of rise itself increasing lately, is well established and well understood. Any increase in plant growth is likely to be of only short-term benefit if warming continues – enhanced evaporation will become a factor here too – and the impact of further sea level rise on low-lying island societies is easy to predict as is the effect on many of the world’s coastal cities.

About half of our more than 500 cities with populations of a million or more are on coasts. Several are already battling to manage the effects of sea level rise.

The volume of evidence on these trends over recent decades is considerable, and the momentum behind them is clear. If they ‘run away’, with temperature and sea levels continuing to increase for decades as some scientists fear they might, there will indeed be serious consequences.

Another of Abbott’s views was that ‘Coal is good for mankind’. He missed completely the possibility that, regardless of coal’s role in past economic development, burning more and more of it is problematic. And his statement that ‘Climate science is crap’ is no more than a refusal to engage the real issue and a denigration of the scientists who are researching it. Howard was no different.

Neither showed an understanding of the timeframes over which climate change is known about or the need to think of the long term, not just the immediate future. Neither recognised that we might be in an inter-glacial era following the end of the last Ice Age or that over the past couple of centuries a new factor has emerged which might be influencing the earth’s climate: industrialising humankind, now numbering more than eight billion people.

Abbott and Howard were victims of an illness which is not new but which appears increasingly to infect political discourse – the tendency to believe what one wants to believe regardless of the evidence. All that counts is one’s beliefs. Reasoning becomes faith-based. And if somebody disagrees, just denigrate. Donald Trump does this relentlessly.

What we need is argument based on logic and evidence, and without the selective plucking of the latter. Unreasoning denial and attacking those who disagree with one’s preferences are unhelpful to public discourse.

The debate on climate change is about where we appear to be going and where we wish to go or avoid going. We should coolly, calmly and intelligently evaluate the threats we face and the opportunities we have. But Howard and Abbott have let themselves down by allowing mere beliefs, poorly supported by evidence, to parade as considered positions. They have not served the public debate well.

Moreover, they have been unprincipled and inconsistent. Howard made it clear in London that his support for an emissions trading scheme at the 2007 election was cynical politics. He was never a believer; he was only reacting to the fashion of the day. And Abbott’s government ratified the Paris agreement and introduced the first renewable energy target, both of which he then attacked.

Now there is a new federal leader of the National Party, Matt Canavan, who disdains renewables and wants to build more coal-fired power stations. Denialism about climate change and what contributes to it are deeply embedded in the Nationals’ mind-set, as any delving into the statements of many of their parliamentarians indicates.

The Coalition has a history of defying the science on energy and climate, Malcolm Turnbull and a few others apart. They are not for turning, part of the rump of Australian opinion that does not accept climate change as established and problematic. They are building their own irrelevance, lately foreshadowed in many polls.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.

Note - Chas Keys is a former academic and Deputy Director General of the NSW State Emergency Service. He writes about floodplain management, climate change, the culture, ethics and politics of cricket and other matters. He is a member of the Emergency Leaders for Climate Action (ELCA)

22/03/2026

Trump's blistering ultimatum over the Strait of Hormuz astonishes analysts

(Robert Davis, Raw Story)

President Donald Trump issued a blistering ultimatum to the Iranian regime on Saturday night, one that raised the eyebrows of multiple political analysts and observers.

Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran has 48 hours to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or else the U.S. will strike multiple energy plants in the country. He made the threat as global energy prices continue to climb from the regime's effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to U.S. ships.

"If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!" Trump wrote.

Over the last week, multiple power plants and energy fields in Iran have been struck by Israeli forces. The strikes became such a problem for the Trump administration that Trump demanded Israel stop striking Iran without telling the U.S. first. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested that the Trump administration has been made aware of Israeli operations.

"I'm old enough to remember when he said the U.S. doesn't care because we don't even use the Strait of Hormuz. It was, like, yesterday," space archaeologist Justin Walsh posted on Bluesky.

"We’re not even a month into this war yet, and he’s already threatening to do war crimes on main," journalist Matt Novak posted on Bluesky.

"Such a move would disproportionately harm civilians, something the regime has made clear it cares little about," journalist Yashar Ali posted on X.

"From claiming the war is 'winding down' to threatening a new act of terror against a country of 90 million people," journalist Aaron Maté posted on X.

22/03/2026

Labor easily wins South Australian election with One Nation beating Liberals into second on primary votes

With 34% of enrolled voters counted for today’s South Australian state election, The Poll Bludger’s results have Labor winning 31 of the 47 lower house seats, the Liberals four, One Nation one and independents one, with ten still in some doubt. This is already a majority for Labor.

When doubtful seats are assigned to the most likely winner, Labor has 35 seats, One Nation four, the Liberals four and independents four. If this occurs, Labor would gain eight seats from the 2022 election, which was already a thumping win for Labor, the Liberals would be down 12, One Nation up four and independents steady.

Primary votes are currently 37.8% Labor (down 1.9% in booth matched swing from the 2022 election), 20.8% One Nation (up 18.5%), 18.4% Liberals (down 16.9%), 12.0% Greens (up 1.9%) and 5.6% independents (up 2.9%). A Labor vs Liberal two-party estimate has Labor winning by 59.2–40.8, a 4.6% swing to Labor.

While SA Labor was a first-term government, a negative impact from a somewhat unpopular federal Labor government should have been expected. Labor’s landslide will be devastating for the Liberals.

While One Nation is beating the Liberals on primary votes by 3.4%, which of these parties wins the most seats is still to be determined.

The Poll Bludger’s results map currently shows only one Adelaide seat being won by a conservative party (Bragg by the Liberals). If Australia’s cities keep trending to the left, it will be very difficult for the right to win here.

Except for a late experimental Resolve poll that was conducted using AI, the polling for this election appears to have been accurate. It will be at least another week before we have final primary votes for the election.

There are many seats where the electoral commission selected the incorrect two candidates for its election night two candidate preferred. In these seats, the count will need to be realigned between the correct two candidates. This will probably occur early next week. One Nation’s surge meant that the old Labor vs Liberal two candidate selection no longer automatically applies.

The large number of pre-poll votes are unlikely to be counted until later tonight, with some not finished by the end of tonight. These votes may affect some results, but the overall Labor landslide will still occur.

I will update this article Sunday morning with more details on the results, including a look at the upper house. In the upper house, 11 of the 22 members were up by statewide proportional representation with preferences. A quota for election was one-twelfth of the vote or 8.3%.
Update Sunday morning

Many pre-poll votes have still not been counted. I’m not sure whether they’ll be counted today or early next week. With 52% of enrolled voters counted, The Poll Bludger’s results give Labor 33 of the 47 seats, the Liberals four, One Nation three and independents two, with five seats in some doubt.

Assigning doubtful seats to the most likely winner gives Labor 35, the Liberals five, One Nation four and independents three. If this occurs, the Liberals would retain opposition status.

Statewide primary votes are 39.1% Labor, 21.6% One Nation, 18.7% Liberals, 11.1% Greens and 4.7% independents, with Labor leading the Liberals by 57.4–42.6 on a two-party estimate.

Postal votes have still not been counted, and they will assist the Liberals. But absent votes that are cast by voters outside their home electorate will help Labor.

One Labor-held seat is in doubt. In Light, pre-polls have been counted and Labor has 37.8% of the primary vote, One Nation 34.3%, the Liberals 12.5% and the Greens 8.8%. The Poll Bludger has Labor barely leading One Nation after preferences 50.3–49.7, but we will need to wait for a Labor vs One Nation preference count after the initial count was Labor vs Liberal.

In Heysen, pre-polls have been counted and the Liberals have 33.4%, Labor 24.4%, the Greens 23.0% and One Nation 14.5%. With assistance from One Nation preferences and postals, the Liberals will probably beat either Labor or the Greens in the final count.

Pre-poll votes have not yet been counted in the other three doubtful seats. In Hammond, One Nation is ahead, but the two candidate count will need to be realigned. In Stuart, independent Geoff Brock is a clear favourite to retain. In Kavel, Labor loses to independent Matt Schultz, but Schultz could be pushed out of the final two by One Nation on Liberal preferences.

Only 17% of the upper house vote has been counted. Labor has 4.4 quotas, One Nation 2.8, the Liberals 2.0, the Greens 1.4 and Legalise Cannabis and Family First 0.3 quotas each. On current figures, Labor would win four of the 11 seats up at this election, One Nation three, the Liberals two and the Greens one, with the final seat a Labor vs Greens contest.

In 2022, Labor won five seats, the Liberals four, the Greens onc and One Nation one, with One Nation’s winner Sarah Game defecting. If the current results hold, Labor would have 9–10 upper house seats out of 22, the Liberals six, One Nation three, the Greens 2–3 and Game one. Labor and the Greens would have the 12 combined seats needed for a majority.
Late SA Resolve poll

I covered four SA polls in Friday’s article. In a further poll, Resolve conducted “a new experimental AI poll” of SA for Nine newspapers on March 16 from a sample of 1,112. This poll gave Labor 32% of the primary vote, One Nation 28%, the Liberals 18%, the Greens 10% and all Others 11%.

Adrian Beaumont

Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne and The Conversation