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.

Terrorist linked to Bondi massacre suspect set to walk free. Federal police are seeking restrictions on convicted terrorist and self-declared Australian ISIS commander Isaac El Matari, who will walk free on Sunday after Home Affairs made NO effort to extend his incarceration. El Matari is a known associate of Naveed Akram, the alleged perpetrator of the Bondi Hanukkah massacre, and is currently at the centre of Federal Court proceedings brought by the AFP as his five-year jail term draws to an end. The AFP is currently seeking an interim control order (ICO) for El Matari – a year-long directive preventing particular behaviours from someone convicted of terrorism or who is deemed to present a terror risk. This could leave El Matari subject to monitoring or reporting requirements similar to recipients of conditional bail orders. I guess the question remains, why hasn’t Burke & Home Affairs taken action? theaustralian.com.au/nation/… via @australian

Of all the charts from today’s inflation announcement I think the one attached really tells the story.. In the 12 months to September 2026: The Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 4.3%, up from 4.0% in the 12 months to August 2026. Trimmed mean inflation was 3.6%, up from a revised 3.5% in the 12 months to August 2026.  In the month of September, the CPI rose 0.8% in original and 0.6% in seasonally adjusted terms.

One of the positives about today is I’ve managed to remove even more of the flotsam from my timeline. "𝓕𝓸𝓻 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔂 𝓪𝓭𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓲𝓽𝔂 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓮𝓭 𝓸𝓯 𝓪𝓷 𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓪𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓻 𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓫𝓮𝓷𝓮𝓯𝓲𝓽." ✅

Inflation up again.. From @AngusTaylorMP Australians are paying more for everything because of Labor. Because Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers can’t manage money, inflation has been too high for too long. The more they spend, the more you pay. Last year, the Prime Minister said “we are turning the corner” on inflation, and his Treasurer said “the worst of the inflation challenge is now well and truly behind us”. They were wrong. Today, inflation has risen to 4.3%. This is higher than in any major advanced economy. Under Labor, it has averaged almost double what it was under the Coalition (4.0% versus 2.2%). The Reserve Bank, the International Monetary Fund, economists and business leaders have all made it clear: Labor’s spending is fuelling inflation. Australians pay for it in three ways. First, a higher cost of living. Groceries, health care, energy bills and everyday goods and services all cost more. Second, higher interest rates. When Labor’s spending keeps inflation above target, the Reserve Bank raises rates. A typical new mortgage holder is having to pay over $30,000 in extra interest a year since Labor was elected. Renters pay too, because these costs are passed on. Third, higher taxes. As wages rise with inflation, workers are pushed into higher tax brackets, even though they’re no better off. That’s “bracket creep”, and it’s not fair. It doesn’t have to be this way. The Liberals and Nationals have found $31 billion in savings by cutting Labor’s waste, the first step in fixing the Budget. It’s part of our plan to fix the economy and protect our way of life. The Liberals and Nationals will always spend less and tax less than Labor. A Taylor-Canavan Government will cut your taxes every twelve months, by getting rid of bracket creep. This means you will keep more of what you earn, every year, because you won’t be pushed into a higher tax bracket by inflation. And when higher commodity prices deliver a windfall, we’ll save it and pay down debt, not spend it as Labor has. You can read more about our plan here: liberal.org.au/plan Kind regards, Angus Taylor Leader of the Opposition

CUE THE OUTRAGE … The responses are SO bloody predictable on here. The selectivity is astounding. WELL, LET ME MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO YOU. I believe this satire & parody stuff has GONE TOO FAR. The ABC went too far with that utterly disgraceful satirical piece about Gina Rinehart, which many of us condemned at the time. ON has gone too far with some of its satirical cartoons, which I have also condemned. And there are satire & parody accounts on here that go way too far, too. Then we have the sock puppet & troll accounts masquerading as satire or parody, using those labels as a convenient shield while spreading misinformation, propaganda, personal abuse & outright nastiness. And far too many people blindly follow & unquestioningly swallow what these accounts serve up, without stopping to consider who is behind them, what their motives might be or whether a word of it is true. Satire is not a free pass to abandon judgement, decency or responsibility. And criticism of satire is NOT censorship. Nor is it an attack on free speech. And if people can’t distinguish between children’s cartoons featuring fictional characters engaging in slapstick antics & political cartoons depicting actual people in ways that demean, dehumanise or vilify them, then perhaps they need to take a long, hard look at themselves. There is a difference between humour that entertains & humour that seeks to humiliate or dehumanise. And calling something satire doesn’t magically erase that distinction. And YES, my original comment was prompted by a cartoon depicting politicians killing a much-loved children’s character because it was a news story TODAY. Not a news story years ago. But the point I’m making is FAR broader than that. It’s about the increasingly blurred boundaries between satire, parody, personal vilification & outright nastiness, regardless of who is responsible. And what I find particularly galling is the selectivity of some of the comments directed at me. Apparently, whether something is offensive or unacceptable increasingly depends on WHO produces it rather than WHAT is being produced. Well, my standards don’t change according to the political allegiance of those responsible. Nor do I believe that having the right to produce something automatically makes it right to produce it. There is a fundamental difference between defending freedom of expression & defending every expression made in its name. And sadly, judging by some of the responses, that broader point appears to have gone straight over people’s heads. And I make absolutely NO apology for holding that view.

The ABC states it will take legal action over a One Nation Please Explain cartoon depicting the beloved children’s character Bluey being run over by a car driven by Daniel Andrews, with Albanese in the passenger seat. The legal dispute between the ABC & ON is their issue. 𝐌𝐲 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐧𝐬. I think that is sad. And hiding behind the label of “satire or parody” doesn’t automatically make the content acceptable or justify it in my book. Satire has a legitimate place in political commentary. But that doesn’t mean it should be immune from criticism or that anything goes simply because someone calls it a joke. There is a difference between having the right to produce something & exercising good judgement about whether you should. And I think that distinction is increasingly being lost. And not just by ON.

Why this is a surprise escapes me because when the story originally broke it was disclosed that the NSW Govt had already funded the sewage works. So does this latest excuse imply that @AlboMP’s 60 odd advisors don’t advise him? Or does it imply that he is a habitual liar who thinks we are a bunch of uninformed idiots?

𝐁𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐯 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 @chrisbrycki today. Investors have long debated which is the better investment: property or shares. You can make a convincing case for either. It depends on the period you choose and how you account for borrowing, income, tax and the costs of buying, holding and selling. This point below is important because it’s something Labor either doesn’t understand or simply ignorantly ignores. Investing in property has often been favoured by first-time investors because it’s something they know. It’s a tangible asset they already understand after buying their first home. Research from ETF provider Global X bears this out: people with more basic investment knowledge predominantly bought property.  INVESTMENT PROPERTY SHIFT Consider someone who buys a $1m established investment property on July 1, 2027. They contribute a $200,000 deposit and borrow $800,000 through a 30-year principal-and-interest mortgage at 6 per cent. Gross rent starts at $35,000 a year, or about $673 a week. The model allows for a 2 per cent vacancy rate and annual property expenses starting at 1.6 per cent of the purchase price, but these figures can be changed. Under the previous rules, an investor on a 39 per cent marginal tax rate including Medicare would need to contribute about $27,651 after tax during the first year. Under the new rules, losses from an established investment property can’t immediately reduce the investor’s tax on salary. Instead, they’re quarantined and carried forward. The investor’s first-year cash contribution therefore increases to approximately $39,048. That’s an extra $11,397 from their pocket. How much more rent would they need just to be no worse off? The starting rent would need to rise from approximately $673 to $894 a week. That’s an increase of about 33 per cent, or $221 a week. This wouldn’t make the property cashflow-positive. It would simply leave the investor with the same shortfall as before. INVESTMENT PROPERTY v SHARES OVER 30 YEARS The tax changes also rewrite the longer-term contest between property and shares. We compared the same $1m property with a diversified ETF portfolio over 30 years. We assumed property prices grow by 6 per cent each year. The ETF portfolio earns 8.25 per cent a year after fees and before tax. This includes 6.2 per cent capital growth and a 2.8 per cent income yield, less annual fees of 0.75 per cent. Both investments start with the same capital. Every additional dollar contributed towards the property’s mortgage, expenses and tax is also invested into the ETF portfolio. Under the previous rules, property finishes $302,000 ahead. Under the new rules, the result reverses and ETFs finish $333,000 ahead. That’s a $635,000 swing away from property. theaustralian.com.au/wealth/… via @australian

Good morning my lovelies

As taxpayers we are now funding a website giving advice to PEDOPHILES!!! Beyond words, seriously beyond words. And begs the question.. 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫-𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐛𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧? 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐫, 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐥𝐲, 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟? Michelle Rowland & the Albanese govt is defending its taxpayer-funded StopItNow! Australia website, launched in April as part of a $9.6 million program, despite criticism of advice telling people with sexual fantasies about children not to “beat yourself up” and to allow the thoughts to pass. The website recommends distraction techniques & directs users to UK-based self-help modules, one of which questions whether sexual attraction to children can be changed, comparing attempts to do so with historical gay-conversion therapy. The Coalition has accused Labor of failing to put child safety first, while the govt continues to support the program, which also provides an anonymous expert helpline. The Albanese govt is not merely funding this website. It is defending it, including in the face of serious questions about the advice being provided. Taxpayers are entitled to demand answers, & above all, assurances that protecting children remains the absolute priority. theaustralian.com.au/nation/… via @australian

Wind Farms Are Splitting Country Towns. Who Gets a Say? I wish everyone would watch this & then ask themselves do you think this, fair & how, you feel if this was forced on you? youtu.be/HN6w2xjxOjw?si=DoWZ… via @YouTube

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…