
@Kate3015i
🇦🇺Account based in!
About this account
- Account based in
- Australia
- Connected via
- Australia App Store
! X says this location may be affected by a proxy or VPN.
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Politics without the tribalism. Balanced centre-right. Reason, evidence and principle — not slogans, outrage or personality cults. NO DM’s
Australia 🇦🇺🇦🇺
Joined April 2009
- Tweets343K
- Following7.1K
- Followers16.8K
- Likes195K
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.
SYDNEY: Moorebank shooting: Shots fired into south-western Sydney home with children inside. Cars set alight!!
There were seven children in this house. The poor little kids age between 3 & 10 thankfully were uninjured but they must have been terrified.
smh.com.au/national/nsw/manh…
Kate🦋M© retweeted
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established 38 years ago, ostensibly as a neutral agency to gather objective scientific information on climate.
Instead, it became the focused, driving force behind the greatest environmental and social upheaval in modern history. From day one, the IPCC was a highly politicised body. Founded entirely by United Nations agencies - the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme - it gave the UN complete administrative control over the climate agenda.
The sheer complexity of the machinery combined with the aura of technical secrecy is precisely what insulates it from scrutiny.
The WMO bridges the gap between raw meteorological data, international political agendas and the media. By linking thousands of land stations, ocean buoys, aircraft and satellites, its role is to share critical weather and water data. However, this infrastructure was co-opted into a public relations framework.
Consequently, the world has been bombarded with overhyped weather hysteria for almost 40 years. Mainstream news outlets routinely prioritise speculative, worst-case climate models over empirical observations, maintaining a permanent state of crisis designed to shape public compliance.
Climate management bears no relation to the UN’s foundational charter of resolving international conflict; this is a textbook case of bureaucratic mission creep. Nor are UN agencies passive coordinators. Through the WMO, they ensured a crisis framework became the baseline for all weather reporting.
Local weather outlets and national agencies now operate inside an ecosystem heavily influenced by overarching, high-alarm targets, broadcasting continuous warnings of global boiling, sea level rises, and a 'Code Red for Mankind' - with UN leadership acting as the chief amplifier.
The IPCC did not recruit independent scientific staff; instead, its administrative apparatus became active in sponsoring and selecting studies that supported the carbon dioxide hypothesis. Research raising questions or doubts was minimised or discarded. Critics found their work starved of publishers, and in some cases, university tenures were threatened.
This environment birthed foundational, highly charged studies designed to lock in future warming projections. Among the earliest was the 1999 'hockey stick' graph by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, which erased historical temperature variations to present a sharp, unprecedented upward spike in the twentieth century.
For decades, the institution promoted worst-case scenarios. A prime example is the IPCC's 2011 report warning of a 5.5-degree temperature rise - a prediction so extreme that mainstream scientists have finally conceded it was implausible and quietly withdrawn it. Yet the pattern of reliance on flawed models over real-world observation had already been set.
Armed with this manufactured crisis, the UN called for the rapid dismantling of hydrocarbon fuels - coal, oil and natural gas - which had lifted humanity out of stagnation and powered the Industrial Revolution. Almost every aspect of modern civilisation, from transport networks to manufacturing plants, relies entirely on these dense, inexpensive, and reliable energy sources.
The proposed replacements - intermittent wind and solar - have proven fundamentally incapable of providing raw baseload power. Yet the push to phase out hydrocarbons has marched forward regardless, driving the planned decline of heavy industrial production, severe economic downturns, and widespread job losses across Western nations.
By establishing the IPCC, the UN created a centralised machinery that successfully synthesised climate science into a global political weapon - sacrificing empirical reality on the altar of bureaucratic expansion.
I picked this up on my ground camera this morning. And I shouldn’t laugh but poor little Aslan was pecked on the butt by a magpie this morning. 😊😊
I'm really pleased he's starting treatment on Tuesday. Hopefully, once the underlying problem is under control, he'll begin putting some weight back on. 🧡
I think I’m losing it.
On my iPhone I have my solar battery tracker on the home page
On my new iPad I also have a battery tracker on the home page
I’ve been sitting here wondering why my battery tracker on my iPad is displaying less stored power than I thought I should have. It’s a hot day and here’s me thinking I must be serving up to the VPP - virtual power plant. Pressed the tracker and it didn’t take me to the app.
Red faced 💡lightbulb💡 moment when it dawned on me that the tracker on my iPad is the iPad battery tracker NOT my solar battery 😂😂
It has been one of those weeks
Sometimes the problem isn't that life is complicated. It's just that we're looking in the wrong place. 😂😂
THE QUESTION IS. ARE WE PREPARED TO START CHANGING OUR BEHAVIOUR & STOP BLAMING EVERYONE FOR IT?
Chris Uhlmann argues that the brutal attack on independent MP Helen Haines is not simply an assault on an individual, but an assault on Australian democracy itself. When elected representatives can no longer move freely among the people they serve, something fundamental has been lost.
Drawing on comments from ASIO director-general Mike Burgess & former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty, Uhlmann examines the growing coarsening of Australian society. Abuse, intolerance & hostility have become increasingly normalised, from social media to workplaces, shops & public life.
Burgess warns that unchecked behaviour creates an environment in which violence becomes easier to contemplate. ASIO’s caseload involving potential violence has increased significantly, with Islamic violent extremism accounting for two-thirds of its counter-terrorism work. Other threats arise from grievances & extremist ideologies across the political spectrum.
Uhlmann traces Australia’s long history of political violence, demonstrating that extremism is neither new nor confined to one political persuasion. What distinguishes today is the speed with which online hatred spreads, radicalising individuals who may turn to violence with little warning.
He is particularly critical of the political left’s willingness to excuse violence committed in pursuit of causes it supports, singling out the Greens. His central argument, however, applies equally to everyone: condemning the behaviour of opponents is easy; confronting the behaviour of allies is the real test of principle.
He also draws an important distinction between legitimate protest & intimidation. Freedom of speech does not confer an unrestricted right to harass, threaten or obstruct others.
Both Burgess & Keelty argue that policing alone cannot reverse this deterioration. Responsibility rests with the entire community, including political, religious & educational leaders, to restore respect, personal responsibility & the values underpinning our democracy.
Uhlmann’s overriding message is that democracy depends on more than institutions, elections & laws. It depends on the conduct of its citizens, their willingness to tolerate disagreement & their refusal to excuse hatred or violence, regardless of who perpetrates it.
The attack on Helen Haines should be a moment of national reflection. The question is whether we are prepared to change our behaviour, rather than simply condemn the behaviour of others.
theaustralian.com.au/inquire… via @australian
Address to the Western Australian Liberal Party State Conference from @AngusTaylorMP.
One of the best addresses I’ve read.
angustaylor.com.au/media/add…
We all have a light & a dark side.
Unfortunately, spending too much time on this page of mine has resulted in my darker side becoming a little too dominant.
Hopefully not too frequently in what I say, but certainly in what I think, how I feel & sometimes how I react.
And that hasn’t been helped by over twelve months of a very negative influence in my personal life, a chapter I finally closed this week.
So, for the first time in a long while, my Sundays can once again be devoted to doing the things I enjoy, rather than dealing with things that drain me.
And perhaps it’s time to restore a little balance.
With that in mind, I’ve started a new X page. @dailythoughtsxz
Little reflections, observations & reminders. Primarily to myself, but hopefully offering a little inspiration, encouragement or perspective to others along the way.
I made my first post today.
If you’d like to tag along, I’d love your company. And if you have thoughts or words of inspiration of your own, please share them.
Because perhaps, together, we can remind ourselves & each other that despite all the anger, division & negativity surrounding us, there is still an enormous amount of good in this world.
And just to be clear, I’m NOT abandoning this page. I’ll still be here, expressing my opinions, challenging what I disagree with & speaking out about the things I believe matter. And, of course, continuing to be a thorn in the butt of many. 😂😂
That part of me isn’t going anywhere. 😊
But I also want to give the other side of me a little more room to breathe.
Because life is about more than politics, arguments, anger & division.
There is still so much beauty, kindness, humour & goodness in this world.
And perhaps it’s time I spent a little more time celebrating that, too. 🦋
The headline here should read LANGUAGE HAS CONSEQUENCES.
And I believe Greg Sheridan is right.
Unfortunately, those who take the time to read his column are probably the very people who already understand the problem. Those who most need to reflect on it are perhaps the least likely to do so.
Sheridan argues that political discourse has become increasingly hostile, polarised & dangerous, with inflammatory rhetoric helping create a climate in which political violence becomes more acceptable.
He acknowledges Trump’s contribution to coarsening political debate through personal abuse, threats & inflammatory language. But he argues that historically the political left has been more willing to embrace revolutionary violence, pointing to unrest in France & radical left-wing movements.
In Australia, Sheridan singles out the Greens, citing David Shoebridge calling Coalition politicians “scumbags”, Nick McKim accusing politicians of being “captured by Zionist interests” & the backlash when Larissa Waters offered condolences after Jim Molan’s death. He argues that this rhetoric fuels division & intolerance.
Nor does he excuse the right. He criticises ON for calling Andrew Hastie a “traitor” for obeying a court subpoena in proceedings involving Ben Roberts-Smith. Disagreeing with Hastie is one thing; vilifying him for fulfilling a legal obligation is another.
Sheridan also examines the danger of anti-Israel rhetoric spilling into antisemitism. He argues that using “Zionist” as a term of abuse can encourage extremists to see Australian Jews as legitimate targets. He criticises the Albanese Govt’s inadequate response to warnings about antisemitism, while explicitly stating that the Govt itself is not antisemitic.
He also warns of an alliance between elements of the radical left & Islamist extremists, which he believes contributes to unrest in Western democracies.
On that point, when pro-Palestinian protests began in Australia after October 7, I raised concerns about this emerging red-green alliance along with radical Islamists. People on X promptly called me an idiot for even suggesting it.
Sheridan warns that social media & AI amplify extremism & misinformation. He also rejects the idea that terrorism & mental illness are always separate explanations: political extremism & mental health problems can coexist.
His broader concern is what we have lost in Australian political culture. Disagreement once came with humour, irreverence & some mutual tolerance. Increasingly it comes with hatred, contempt & personal vilification.
His central message is that LANGUAGE HAS CONSEQUENCES.
The answer is not to silence disagreement, but to restore rational debate, mutual respect & appreciation for our democratic institutions.
We can disagree without despising one another. We can challenge ideas without vilifying people. And we can argue passionately without abandoning decency.
Because once we lose that ability, we lose something far more important than a political argument.
theaustralian.com.au/comment… via @australian
THE FOLLY OF TURNING CLIMATE SCIENCE INTO AN ARTICLE OF FAITH
Correlation does not equal causation. It’s a fundamental principle of rational analysis, yet one that sometimes seems to disappear in the public debate about climate change.
Not every flood, drought, bushfire, storm or unusual weather is responsible for forcing families to marry their young daughters off & destroying the health & education systems for girls. But followers of the faith bizarrely think that.
And whilst Climate change is a legitimate field of scientific inquiry the science demands evidence, scrutiny & a willingness to question conclusions.
When every weather event is treated as confirmation of an existing belief, while questioning the explanation is dismissed as heresy, we’re no longer having a particularly useful scientific discussion.
We’re defending a narrative. And an increasingly bizarre narrative at that. @ccdeditor
climatechangedispatch.com/th…
Media Lies About Drought And ‘Climate Change’ In The UK
Rainfall data over the last 100 years does NOT show that Britain’s recent drought can be linked to man-made 'climate change'.
You have to give them points for trying & trying .. but every time the actual data blows their claims up.. 😊
@ccdeditor
climatechangedispatch.com/me…
Firstly, I’ve never claimed to be a political expert. I’m merely a reasonably well-informed person who takes an interest in how OUR political & constitutional systems operate. And when I don’t understand something, I make the effort to inform myself.
I’m perfectly aware that parliamentary republics exist. But you’re now shifting the argument from the constitutional responsibilities of the GG to whether Australia should adopt an entirely different system.
And you’re confusing an executive presidency with a parliamentary republic in which the president performs largely constitutional & ceremonial functions.
An executive president exercises substantial governing authority. A parliamentary president may perform functions very similar to those currently exercised by our GG.
In fact, the republic model Australians rejected in 1999 proposed replacing the monarch & GG with a president who would exercise essentially the SAME constitutional powers as the GG.
So replacing the GG with a president would not automatically eliminate the functions you keep dismissing as rubber-stamping.
Who would appoint the PM, assent to legislation, dissolve Parliament or exercise reserve powers in exceptional circumstances? Those responsibilities don’t simply disappear because you change the title of the officeholder.
You’re perfectly entitled to advocate for a republic. But that requires a serious discussion about constitutional reform, not repeatedly dismissing existing constitutional responsibilities as meaningless.
And you’ve still failed to explain how the FOUR duties I’ve outlined are merely ceremonial.
And did you feel so strongly about the two previous GG’s or is this a new dislike based on the fact that we have a woman in the role & not only a woman but one for her sins was appointed by Albanese?
With an attitude like that, it’s little wonder things are becoming progressively worse.
You may never eradicate bullying entirely, but you can certainly endeavour to reduce its prevalence by challenging the behaviour, teaching respect & holding people accountable.
And I know all about narcissistic traits, thank you. I understand them only too well.
But understanding why someone behaves badly does NOT mean we should simply accept that behaviour as inevitable.
Your approach places the responsibility almost entirely on the victim. Mine places it where it belongs. On the person doing the bullying.
Always informative Peter and how true is. “Science is at its best when it welcomes a search for truth rather than relying on dogma.”
Far from causing a mass collapse, previous high-carbon epochs fostered some of the richest expansions of biosphere diversity in Earth’s history.
The long-term geological record reaffirms that atmospheric CO₂ and global surface temperature do not move together in simple lockstep. Carbon dioxide levels were 10 to 15 times higher than today during peaks in the early Paleozoic era, 538.8 to 251.9 million years ago.
In another notable example, extensive ice sheets covered major continental areas during the Late Ordovician glaciation 440 million years ago, even as CO₂ levels exceeded 4,000 ppm. By contrast, today's CO₂ hovers around 425 ppm, rising and falling with the rhythms of the seasons.
This deep-time perspective is reconstructed from marine sediment cores, fossil isotope data and the physical evidence engraved in the bedrock. It renders modern apocalyptic panics around atmospheric carbon decidedly flawed.
These records are a permanent blueprint of nature across the rise of multicellular life and the broader miracle of Earth's biology. This surviving record is written in stone, and it directly challenges the narrative of a climate emergency.
Earth's climate is governed by a complex matrix of natural drivers - ocean circulation, cloud albedo, solar irradiance, and orbital cycles - of which CO₂ is merely one piece in a planetary jigsaw puzzle.
In the broad arc of history, our current geological epoch (the Quaternary) sits near historic lows for both atmospheric carbon and planetary temperature. During recent glacial peaks, CO₂ fell to approximately 180 ppm - dangerously close to the 150 ppm threshold where land plants cease photosynthetic activity.
The modest rise in CO₂ over the industrial era has effectively pulled the biosphere further away from that biological floor, stimulating global vegetation growth and leaf expansion confirmed by NASA satellite observations.
The UN narrative relies on suppressing doubt and evading foundational questions. Science is at its best when it welcomes a search for truth rather than relying on dogma.
When we look at Earth’s full history, CO₂ stands out as an essential building block of a thriving biological world. To reduce this grand planetary epic to a single monochrome of imminent ecological collapse makes a mockery of the hard truth in the rocks beneath our feet.
IMAGE: What 540 million years of geological history says: Willis Eschenbach.
Kate🦋M© retweeted
Far from causing a mass collapse, previous high-carbon epochs fostered some of the richest expansions of biosphere diversity in Earth’s history.
The long-term geological record reaffirms that atmospheric CO₂ and global surface temperature do not move together in simple lockstep. Carbon dioxide levels were 10 to 15 times higher than today during peaks in the early Paleozoic era, 538.8 to 251.9 million years ago.
In another notable example, extensive ice sheets covered major continental areas during the Late Ordovician glaciation 440 million years ago, even as CO₂ levels exceeded 4,000 ppm. By contrast, today's CO₂ hovers around 425 ppm, rising and falling with the rhythms of the seasons.
This deep-time perspective is reconstructed from marine sediment cores, fossil isotope data and the physical evidence engraved in the bedrock. It renders modern apocalyptic panics around atmospheric carbon decidedly flawed.
These records are a permanent blueprint of nature across the rise of multicellular life and the broader miracle of Earth's biology. This surviving record is written in stone, and it directly challenges the narrative of a climate emergency.
Earth's climate is governed by a complex matrix of natural drivers - ocean circulation, cloud albedo, solar irradiance, and orbital cycles - of which CO₂ is merely one piece in a planetary jigsaw puzzle.
In the broad arc of history, our current geological epoch (the Quaternary) sits near historic lows for both atmospheric carbon and planetary temperature. During recent glacial peaks, CO₂ fell to approximately 180 ppm - dangerously close to the 150 ppm threshold where land plants cease photosynthetic activity.
The modest rise in CO₂ over the industrial era has effectively pulled the biosphere further away from that biological floor, stimulating global vegetation growth and leaf expansion confirmed by NASA satellite observations.
The UN narrative relies on suppressing doubt and evading foundational questions. Science is at its best when it welcomes a search for truth rather than relying on dogma.
When we look at Earth’s full history, CO₂ stands out as an essential building block of a thriving biological world. To reduce this grand planetary epic to a single monochrome of imminent ecological collapse makes a mockery of the hard truth in the rocks beneath our feet.
IMAGE: What 540 million years of geological history says: Willis Eschenbach.
Grattan on Friday: Politics reflects society, and our society is in poor shape on many fronts theconversation.com/grattan-… via @ConversationEDU
Angus Taylor brands Australia-EU free trade deal a ‘dud’.
Angus Taylor has condemned the proposed Australia–EU Free Trade Agreement as a “dud”, arguing it delivers inadequate agricultural market access while imposing climate obligations that could undermine Australia’s sovereignty and constrain future governments.
Taylor says the Coalition could only support the agreement if the climate provisions were removed and meaningful improvements secured for Australian dairy and red meat producers.
Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Ted O’Brien is seeking a compromise through a legally binding side-letter that would protect Australia’s freedom to determine its own climate policies and shield Australian businesses from potential trade penalties. He argues the EU agreement goes further than the UK FTA by explicitly allowing trade preferences to be suspended over climate violations.
Trade Minister Don Farrell rejects these concerns, insisting the agreement does not compromise sovereignty and would strengthen Australia’s economic position. He argues the deal is too valuable to abandon, particularly given the EU’s importance as Australia’s third-largest trading partner.
Former Coalition finance minister Mathias Cormann also supports proceeding, arguing that an imperfect agreement is preferable to another decade of restricted market access.
On this, I disagree with Cormann. An imperfect trade agreement is not necessarily one worth signing simply because it offers some improvement over the status quo. The question is not just what Australia gains, but what we concede in return, particularly in agricultural market access, climate obligations & national sovereignty.
And once an international agreement is signed, renegotiating its terms can be considerably more difficult than negotiating them beforehand. A bad deal doesn’t become a good deal simply because it’s better than no deal.
While the agreement would make 97.8% of Australian export value duty-free from day one, the National Farmers Federation says it delivers no material improvements for key agricultural commodities. Critical minerals and services are expected to be major beneficiaries.
The fundamental disagreement is whether the economic benefits justify accepting limited agricultural concessions and potentially binding climate obligations that could restrict future Australian policy decisions.
And surely, after ten years of negotiations, Australia should be seeking an agreement that delivers meaningful benefits without unnecessarily compromising its ability to determine its own future policies.
theaustralian.com.au/nation/… via @australian












