Mark Latham escapes condemnation over behaviour in parliament - at least for now
Labor's leader in the upper house, Penny Sharpe, moved to condemn Latham, arguing he revealed contents of a Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) report which was under a non-publication order, and shared medical information relating to MP Alex Greenwich, which the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal intended to be kept confidential.
'The Honourable Mark Latham, MLC, has done and said things that challenge the work we all do to better the culture of this place, and he has abused the privileges and immunities that we hold,' Sharpe said.
The LECC report on Operation Askern detailed an investigation into the Commissioner's gin scandal after then-police commissioner Karen Webb used public funds to purchase alcohol from a distillery owned by one of her friends to be used as gifts. The contents of the report were made available to MPs with an order preventing their release to the public.
The government failed to get the support needed to pass the motion condemning Latham, with the Coalition and the Greens voting to delay the debate until October. The house agreed to refer Latham to the powerful privileges committee first.
The committee will also look into the conduct of Latham and other members towards MPs and staff and the progress parliament is making towards a safer workplace culture after it was revealed through leaked messages that Latham had taken secret photographs of female MPs in the chamber.
Liberal Susan Carter, the subject of one of the photographs, said she would not support a motion condemning Latham until the committee had reported back.
Latham used the fiery debate to rehash grievances against his political nemesis, Greenwich, as well as Webb, Labor MPs and the media.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
At this rate, the only outcome from this summit will be making us poorer
As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Trump administration pressures Albanese government over defence budget, warning AUKUS goals at risk without 3.5 per cent of GDP
The United States has issued its most forceful warning yet to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, with the Pentagon urging Canberra to significantly increase defence expenditure or risk undermining its AUKUS commitments and overall military readiness. In what shapes as a critical test for the Labor government, senior US defence officials are now calling for Australia to adopt a spending benchmark of 3.5 per cent of GDP, labelled by Washington as the new international norm in the era of strategic competition and rising global instability. 'For Australia in particular, it is vitally important that they are able to raise defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP,' a US Defence official told The Australian. 'That will allow them to generate and field the kind of forces required not just to defend themselves but work together closely with us to maintain deterrence in the region.' The comments come ahead of a demanding period of international diplomacy for Mr Albanese, who is set to attend the United Nations General Assembly in New York next month and is working towards an in-person meeting with US President Donald Trump. There's growing speculation that the planned Quad leaders' summit may be shifted from India to the US to align with the UN gathering. While the AUKUS pact promises to deliver at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia in the 2030s, that arrangement is contingent on US national security assessments and whether the transfer would erode America's own naval capabilities. Washington now signalling frustration at what it sees as underwhelming fiscal commitment from Canberra. 'It is not an abstraction. This is a concrete objective. AUKUS is an expensive thing. Increasing defence spending is going to be vitally important for Australia to achieve its stated objectives under AUKUS while also modernising the rest of the ADF,' the US official continued. 'At a certain point, it's just maths. They need to spend more on defence.' Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers' most recent budget forecasts military spending reaching nearly $59 billion this financial year, equivalent to just over 2 per cent of GDP. However, only about a third of that funding is allocated to acquiring new weaponry and systems. The government's long-term plan includes an increase of $50.3 billion in defence spending over the next 10 years, but the bulk of that funding is deferred until 2028–29 and beyond. 'I think we can say with confidence that if Australia does not raise defence spending it is going to struggle to field the forces required to defend Australia but also to make good on its commitments to others,' the Pentagon official warned. 'But we are hopeful that Australia will be able to lean in and make these decisions - 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence spending; that is the new global standard.' The US call echoes recent developments in NATO, where member states agreed in June to boost collective defence outlays to 5 per cent of GDP. Mr Albanese has expressed reluctance to pad out Australia's defence numbers by including civilian infrastructure, despite some of those investments directly supporting military capability. He has instead highlighted Australia's direct contribution of over $US1 billion to the US submarine industrial base as a clear signal of commitment to the AUKUS framework. The pressure from Washington arrives just as Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby leads a review of the trilateral security pact, with concerns mounting that Australia's budget settings may fall short of what's needed to deliver on the ambitious goals of AUKUS and meet the demands of a changing Indo-Pacific region.
ABC News
7 hours ago
- ABC News
Australia's rooftop solar and batteries now the main game as large-scale transition flounders
As Australia's energy transition hits turbulence, a quiet but fundamental shift is underway. Faced with long delays, huge cost blowouts, and staunch opposition from some quarters, the push to build large-scale projects from wind farms to transmission lines is becoming increasingly fraught. In the past few weeks alone, there's been a series of large-scale setbacks. Several green hydrogen projects have been binned, the market operator has conceded some high-voltage power lines may not get built because of soaring costs, and developers have walked away from offshore wind proposals. Such reverses, according to the likes of former Labor adviser Ross Garnaut, are undermining Australia's efforts to hit its climate and energy targets set out under global agreements to limit temperature rises. "We are for the time being on a path to comprehensive failure," Garnaut said at a conference last month, because of "low investment and output in grid-scale solar and wind". "Not by a little, but by a big margin," he told the audience. Note the language — "grid-scale solar and wind". In other words, big projects connected to big power lines. At the other end of the scale — on the roofs and in the garages of homes across Australia — it's a very different story. Australian households are now arguably the main game when it comes to efforts to shift away from fossil fuels and decarbonise the electricity system. It's happening amid the supercharged adoption of rooftop solar and household batteries. And it's about the only part of Australia's energy transition that's not only hitting targets — but leaving them in its wake. "In terms of rooftop solar, I mean, we've smashed expectations," says Peter Tickler, the co-founder of energy analytics firm Gridcog. "If you look back historically on the predictions that everyone had for how much rooftop solar there would be, how popular it would be, I mean, it continually seems to just blow past those expectations." Indeed, these days, there are more than four million households and businesses across the country with rooftop solar. It's a figure that amounts to about one in every three small-scale customers in the land. Tickler notes the outsized performance of rooftop solar has long been true in Australia, but this has not extended to other clean technologies, such as batteries. But here, too, the story is rapidly changing thanks to government subsidies that have put a rocket under the demand for household batteries. Last month, after the federal subsidy scheme had been in place for barely a few weeks, registrations for new batteries eclipsed those for solar for the first time. Just a week later, it emerged the $2.3 billion the Albanese government had set aside for batteries under the program is on track to be spent far sooner than planned. Australia, Tickler says, is "between stools" and shifting towards small-scale fixes. "There's an enormous amount of capability there," he says. "I mean, there are something like 20 gigawatts of rooftop solar and there's less than 10 gigawatts of utility-scale solar. "That's just an example. "So, as an asset, there's a huge amount of volume there." In a sign of this new reality, a major report into Australia's biggest wholesale electricity market this week spent considerable time discussing the effects of — and opportunities presented by — the expanding fleet of household clean tech. Tim Nelson is a former energy company executive who was picked by energy ministers to lead the review panel. He says the growing importance of small-scale technologies is undeniable. But so, too, is the need to better manage them. At the moment, he notes, the vast majority of solar installations, for example, are all but invisible to the people running the power system because they sit "behind the meter". And yet, their combined nameplate capacity is similar to all the coal-fired plants put together, and their output floods onto the grid every day in a largely uncontrolled way. With Australia in the early stages of a boom in the uptake of other clean kit, such as batteries and electric vehicles, Nelson says it's imperative that authorities get a better handle on what these resources are doing. "The biggest change in the last few years in terms of consumers and the wholesale market is just the nature they now participate in it far more actively," Nelson says. "With the proliferation of rooftop solar and now the emergence of significant volumes of embedded or behind-the-meter batteries, electric vehicles, home energy management systems … consumers are becoming producers as well. "And that unlocks enormous potential benefit if those resources are responding to price and are visible to the market operator." To that end, Nelson and his fellow panel members are recommending changes that make it easier for companies to pool those resources to manage them more efficiently. Ultimately, however, Nelson stresses that householders participating in these sorts of schemes need to see some real benefits. Otherwise, he says they're unlikely to take part, setting back efforts to better coordinate small-scale resources and costing everybody more in the long-term. "By not being observable to the market operator, that over time could result in duplication of investment," he says. "The market operator is not aware of how they're going to respond dynamically to price. "And the forecasts in the future are likely to overestimate how many resources are required." While Nelson is not being drawn on the state of the energy transition at the large-scale end of the development spectrum, other commentators are happy to oblige. Prominent among them is Bruce Mountain, an energy economist with the Victoria Energy Policy Centre and an ardent backer of the switch away from fossil fuels. Mountain is a longstanding critic of the central plan drawn up by the Australian Energy Market Operator to guide the country's transition. That document is known as the integrated system plan, or ISP. According to Mountain, it "claims to be the plan that determines where you should build what quantity of wind, solar, storage and transmission to get us there". Crucially, it revolves around big projects such as wind and solar farms, utility-scale batteries and offshore wind. And all these projects are supposed to be connected to the grid via huge transmission lines linking the country together. "When it came out, it was dancing in the streets, we are saved," Mountain quips. "It's a complete nonsense." At the heart of the ISP is the determination that the national electricity market, which spans Australia's eastern seaboard, needs 10,000km of new transmission lines. In a major blow to that vision, AEMO recently acknowledged that transmission costs had rocketed by up to 100 per cent on last year's estimates. AEMO blamed supply chain problems, including labour and material shortages, as well as increased complexity and social engagement costs. Mountain is having none of it, saying AEMO and successive governments had always downplayed the real costs implied by the ISP. Such blowouts, Mountain says, are an unacceptable risk to consumers because they would ultimately be on the hook for the whole cost through the regulatory system. "They had incentives to massively understate the costs and to overstate benefits because that's what ministers wanted to hear," he says. "Lo and behold, costs are now established or getting increasingly established to be horribly underestimated. "So ministers are now in the politically untenable position of making these horrific choices." For its part, AEMO acknowledges the escalations in the costs of transmission projects and says it will "revisit" some projects to see whether they should still go ahead. "We recognise that higher costs for network development would ultimately affect consumer bills," says Merryn York, AEMO's general manager of system design. Mountain says the many deep-rooted problems bedevilling the ISP and the large-scale projects that depend on it are unlikely to ease. In that sense, he says the main game will increasingly be at the small scale, in homes and businesses. And these customers, he notes, are not directly connected to large, high-voltage power lines but the poles and wires that crisscross Australia's towns and suburbs. They are connected to the small-scale distribution network. Mountain doesn't doubt the distribution network — and its customers — can do much of the heavy lifting required for Australia's energy transition. He says it's likely to be cheaper and quicker than a large-scale undertaking. What's more, it's happening anyway. "We have plenty enough roof space in our cities to meet the electrical demand of our cities and towns," Mountain says. "So we can go along and we will go a long way a lot more quickly with that before we need to worry about the next enormous increments that we will need or the next big plants that we need." Peter Tickler from Gridcog agrees. In fact, he goes even further. "I think it's fundamental," Tickler says. "You just need to look at all of the … the assumptions of the volume of small-scale flex that will be coming in and lending a hand. "I mean, if they're wrong on that volume, then that is a gargantuan gap. "We're not filling it today at the utility scale level at the rates we need.
