rss
58

Weatherill lets fly at right wing attack against renewables

Print Friendly

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill was in a pugnacious mood at the launch of Climate Wars, the new book by Labor’s shadow climate minister Mark Butler, and let fly at the ‘rightwing f***wits’ (his words) that were keen to use any event to attack renewables.

weatherill frydenberg

Butler’s book (reviewed here and the subject of our podcast here) starts with an anecdote about a concert in Adelaide earlier this year, when the lights suddenly went out, and that is where Weatherill started as well. The English singer Adele announced a ‘blackout’ had occurred.

Weatherill admitted that his heart was in his mouth, and joked that treasurer and energy minister Tom Koutsantonis had “fainted in the corporate box” until Adele quickly explained that a roadie had unplugged the wrong cord. The lights were soon back on.

That didn’t stop ‘right-wing f***wits” from seeking to take advantage of the situation. He took particular aim at The Austraian commentator Chris Kenny, who had been sending tweets proclaiming another blackout.

September 2016 – five hours that changed Australian Energy Policy

Weatherill also talked in detail about the September 2016 “system black” that has kick-started an extraordinary process in policy-making, including the Finkel Review, the Musk tweets and South Australia’s energy plan.

Weatherill explained that since State Parliament had its own generator, he had only found out about the system black after being alerted by Koutsantonis telling him ‘we’re black’.

Weatherill took particular aim at Senator Nick Xenophon for spreading fear that “people will die” and that the “lights might be out for five days.”

He also was at pains to explain that while he had contacted Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull the same evening, Turnbull didn’t reply for two weeks, but instead lectured South Australia on its ‘irresponsible’ renewables policy.

Almost a year later, Weatherill is still clearly angered by this – he pointed to the fact that Turnbull had an Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) report on his desk that clearly explained that the blackout was not due to renewables, but because the transmission towers had been blown over by high winds.

Turnbull not a fit Prime Minister

Weatherill then turned to hatred of renewables, the love of coal and the vested interest that sit behind that.

He lamented what he called Turnbull’s “Pauline conversion”, an ‘extraordinary change’ from a man who had said he would not lead a party that was not as committed to climate action as he was to one ‘completely capitulated to the rightwing of his party’.

Weatherill said that for this reason alone, let alone others, Turnbull had disqualified himself as being a fit prime minister, and had played politics while South Australians were stuck in lifts, and stuck in the dark.

Weatherill, to cheers, said he would remind Turnbull of this ‘the next time I’m stood next to him’ (a reference to the infamous Weatherill/Frydenburg stoush in Adelaide earlier this year).

Weatherill said that after the blackout the government could have capitulated, but instead decided to pursue what he knew to the right policy both environmental and economic reasons, and that he was proud South Australia had.

He then turned to the events of February 8th 2017, arguing that opponents of renewables were poised to strike. Although South Australia had the newest gas-fired power station, its owners had chosen ‘for financial reasons to stay shut’.

On the following day, New South Wales had had a load-shedding event, which thwarted the efforts at ridiculing South Australia.

‘The most extraordinary political period’

What happened next was what Weatherill called the most extraordinary period in his political life. ‘We got up and said’ we’ll take charge, not knowing quite what that meant.

“We went from laughing stock to leader in six weeks, with support in the state, nationally and internationally.’

In March the State announced its six point energy plan, and earlier in the month Elon Musk arrived, post-tweet, to announce the 129MWh lithium battery farm.

‘There could not be a more important issue, at the state, national or planetary level,” Weatherill said.

Weatherill is, of, course talking his own book, and faces a stiff election challenge next March. If the letters page of the only daily newspaper, the Murdoch-owned Advertiser, is anything to go by, it will be an uphill battle.

Marc Hudson is a PhD candidate at University of Manchester  

Share this:

  • George Michaelson

    I think he has the right of it, mostly, but in any two sided conversation about public policy there is a bit of give-and-take. S.A. has a regulator, and had the ability to declare powers to require generation to happen, the only possible reason not to flex the lever is cost. Either direct cost in payments, or indirect cost in court fees and fines should the legalisms be judged to be inappropriately applied.

    If the regulator hasn’t been properly empowered, he should look to the failures in the parliamentary process to give the regulator powers, and an override button in the states interest. Obviously, his priority is re-capitalization of state controlled assets to ensure he has direct control over generation and storage and transmission, but he had indirect controls, at least in principle: If he didn’t, that too is a political failure.

    I see analogies to the dam operations ‘bible’ which guided Wivenhoe and was pretty clearly out of date, when the major flood event happened in 2010. The State government can try washing its hands and lynching engineers in charge, but the issues around who decides whats in the book, and how its interpreted point back at the state government, and how it decides to regulate the function. If they hadn’t pasted over the book to make it cope with a drought, the decision to retain water past safe flood mitigation duration and then have to release a surge might well have been avoided.

    • Peter F

      Part of the six point energy plan is to ensure that the local regulator can and does override AEMO and the NEM when necessary. SA had been complaining for years that the rules were inappropriate, but their complaints fell on deaf ears. So they took action. Power prices are still high but reliability will be better than Victoria or NSW next summer

    • Andrew Roydhouse

      The market manipulating generators (as identified in numerous reports from the regulator and operator) did not blink to the SA threat of batteries and now the countdown has begun.

      December 1st is the D-Day (batteries in by summer).

      The way the successful bid is put together – the owner/operator is able to use a large chunk of the storage capacity to take advantage of any attempted market manipulation. Roughly a third of the capacity is reserved for State Govt use for emergency power supply for a relatively short time frame.

      So imagine the following Qld scenario where on over 90 occasions in a 6 month period the majority generators (aka State Govt entities) saw the need to bid $14,000 per MW. If there had been a 90MWh battery around capable of supplying 100MW for 30 minutes (as pricing gets averaged over the following 30 minute period) – then the battery owner could have bid to supply at say $13,750 for 100MW.

      This would use up just 50MW hours from their 90MWh battery. Leaving them another 40MW for the next ramp (if they are not getting charged up by solar or wind in-situ for example).

      So they would earn $687,500 for that supply.

      If they were re-charging from their own wind or solar – it would have a marginal cost of near enough to zero for the re-charge. But we have to add in the effective capital cost, so say $100 a MWh (above what a new build wind or solar is sold for today);

      = 50 * $100 = $5,000

      Profit for roughly 0.5 of one charging cycle = $682,500.

      As the batteries are supposedly warranted for well over 3,000 cycles…

      Potential profits = 3,000 cycles x $672,500 x 2 (as half a cycle)
      = $ 4,125,000,000 PROFIT aka $4.125 Billion

      Cost south of $100mn

      Worthwhile investment? You bet.

      Now others have already or will work out this arbitrage (Macquarie Bank anyone?) and there will be activity.

      Meanwhile the generators that have been totally LEGALLY playing the manipulation game will be upset at their no longer having carte blanche to fleece the system.

      The Qld Govt began to feel the heat from news items, blogs such as RenewEconomy and emails sent by frustrated individuals to Qld media outlets, radio stations, hospital administrators etc suggesting that the Qld community was getting fleeced by a rapacious State Govt who may well have been paying very large amounts to the executives of the State Generators.

      And the power price games coincidentally seemed to cease in Qld.

      So once the SA battery is on-grid (or perhaps shortly before hand) maybe the price will no longer be bid up to $14,000 and unexplainable shut downs at SA gas plants may cease being such a common occurrence.

      Maybe the price will spike to $5,000, maybe $4,000 or maybe to a level where it no longer justifies someone like Macquarie Bank funding/creating another battery say a 100MW 150MWh one?

      Perhaps the weighted SA power price will drop by $20 per MWh, maybe $30.

      Whatever the ultimate reality the money spent by J & Co will end up saving electricity customers Australia-wide billions.

      Seems like money well spent to me.

  • solarguy

    Go Jay. If the people of SA can’t see that you should be re-elected, then their the f$%k wits.

    • Rod

      If only it were that simple.
      Unfortunately we have one “news” paper. A Murdoch rag.
      Those who are too lazy or ignorant to look for other sources of information are brainwashed by anti RE and anti Labor lies.
      Any more energy hiccups and I’m afraid Jay is toast.

      • Mark Roest

        With all the reasons for passionate debate (see next two comments by Patrick & Jaquix), why not hash it out on the internet — maybe a dedicated talk show, bringing in Giles and team, in which you take them down so often and so fiercely that when the next election rolls around, you win in a landslide? And cut Murdoch’s circulation in half while you’re at it?

        • Rod

          Our opposition politicians are also aware of the media bias, hence the frustration.
          This is the reason Australia’s media ownership rules are so important but have failed SA.
          We do have a couple of RE friendly groups who may mobilise for the SA election. Getup and Solar Citizens.

      • solarguy

        Definitely a head wind there.

  • Neville Bott

    It’s a good thing Jay Weatherill is ready to take the ‘rightwing f***wits’ head on.

    But this last sentence identifies the problem with Australian politics:

    “faces a stiff election challenge next March. If the letters page of the only daily newspaper, the Murdoch-owned Advertiser, is anything to go by, it will be an uphill battle.”

    While so many people are being persuaded by the lies from Murdoch’s propaganda Jay and the Labor party (and the greater good of the nation) will be at a severe disadvantage at both state and national levels.

    How can this be resolved?

    Censorship is not the answer, the only idea I have is for the Government to take some time on the government owned ABC and use this to counter the millions of dollars worth of free publicity the right have.

    Does anyone have a better solution ?

    • Rod

      It is even worse than that.
      I frequent the free sections of The Advertiser letters forum and I can assure you the responses are censored!
      A ratio of ten anti RE to one pro RE letter ever makes its way into the Letters section.
      Maybe complaining to the journalism ethics organisation might help but I doubt it.

      • Neil_Copeland

        Agree, I gave up commenting online as they were never published, and they weren’t rude or anything, just didn’t suit their agenda.

        • Rod

          Democracy is doomed if the muppets only have Rupert to inform them.

          • MaxG

            Democracy is not doomed — it has already been dead for while… the loss of the free press was the beginning, as in we lost one pillar of democracy. What are these pillars? The people, the government, the corporations, the free press.
            Since the corporations have bought the government and politicians, the people are basically f*ed, sold out… exactly the current situation.

          • Rod

            I live in hope, but the way they are attacking Aunty from without and within, even that last bastion of free press is doomed.
            Now, I have to go watch Ninja or some shit.

      • Mike Shackleton

        That sort of censorship won’t work though – Penetration of rooftop solar in SA is getting up to 35%. That means everyone in SA would know someone who has rooftop solar and who can attest to it’s effectiveness. Lived experience counts for a lot – if you have people in authority telling you something which runs counter to your lived experience or your friends’ experience – it is very hard to cut through. The echo chamber anti RE yells into gets smaller and smaller.

        • Rod

          Agreed, a massive voting bloc of (hopefully) RE converts but the reason many will have rooftop solar is the cost of energy and the perception has been cultivated that RE (wind mostly) is to blame.

    • Mark Roest

      See above!

      • Neville Bott

        That is helpful but I also think a lot of voters are the disinterested that just don’t make much effort to be informed.

        These are the people that pick up a paper start at the back, read everything then flick to the front. This is the Murdoch constituency interested in the minute details of the football or cricket but just switch off critical thinking for anything else.

    • Sally Noel Triggell

      An idea, if a media outlet lies and knowingly spreads propaganda, revoke their broadcasting license.

    • Climatemonster

      Restrictions on ownership seem one way forward.

  • Jaquix

    Jay Wetherill is justified at being furious with Turnbull who has continually and quite viciously criticised SA for doing what he should be doing himself. Lied shamelessly about that storm event. Now SA has a visit and offer from Elon Musk. Turnbull probably furious at missing out. He engineered an hour with Musk last time he was here. Musk emerged shaking his head. I say good luck to Wetherill. SA Illserved by Xenophon too, always grabs media headlines objecting to Fed Lib announcements, then votes with them anyway. Wasting your votes with him.

  • Patrick Comerford

    People of SA should be rightly proud that they have the most upright honest and effective leaders in this country on their side. In contrast of course to the other motley crew. I’d switch over from Game of Thrones to watch Jay give it to Trumble.

  • David

    Wetherill is not lonely every State government and Federal government since 2007 has allowed the bottom feeders to pull electricity prices away from CPI ensuring that the general population who can normally cope with a cpi rise are left floundering and today we get politicians saying this is the new reality and get used to it.
    As a matter of fact I believe it is worse than that I believe all politicians have deliberately engineered high prices in the mistaken belief that some how this will make renewables able to compete – here is a strong message for those politicians – renewable energy will never be self sufficient.
    RE has been going for over 30 years and is still failing all around the world and reliant for its existence on extensive government support as with out those subsidies RE fails.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4899040-3×2-940×627.jpg

    • Rod

      Wow, that is one hell of a conspiracy theory!
      Did you think of that all on your own….

      • David

        Rod
        The Guardian reported that (back in the late 1980s and early 1990s for example, privatising electricity assets was pitched as = “”””””””””””””””leading to a more productive and efficient industry and lower prices for consumers.”””””””””””” (my emphasis)
        In Victoria, the Kennett government espoused this philosophy and sold its electricity asset) (He also sold Gas and Transport assets)

        https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2014/jan/10/privatisation-benefits-are-not-assured-and-public-are-sceptical-history-shows

        • Rod

          I’m well aware of the Privatisation fallacy. We had similar with ETSA
          This however is in a league of its own:
          ” all
          politicians have deliberately engineered high prices in the mistaken
          belief that some how this will make renewables able to compete “

          • David

            Rod – ever heard of The Kyoto Protocol and a whole heap of other UN inspired agreements which applied to industrialized nations only – of which Australia was one – incidentally we were stiffed as we produced and still produce less than 2% global CO2. This decision also took into account the fact that the poorer economies of the developing countries would be unable to absorb the costs of switching from a fossil fuel based system to cleaner fuels. The plan is that poorer countries will be brought more actively into future climate change agreements as cleaner technologies develop and become less expensive and guess who the bunnies are that are going to make them less expensive – so thats why our politicians deliberately engineered high prices in the mistaken belief they were helping the world by reducing the cost of RE and making them affordable. It is simple really

          • Simon Moore

            It must be the water in SA… like coolade.. The battery can power 32000 homes for 4 or so hours… or SA for 15 minutes. Sounds like a solution to me. Its time to cut the interconnector and see how well that works for SA.

          • Ren Stimpy
          • Mike Shackleton

            With that one post you’ve demonstrated your ignorance on the role the battery is meant to fulfill. It isn’t meant to be a battery backup for the state. It is meant to kick in occasionally to stabilise the grid and also to fill the 10 minute gap between a gas unit firing up and being able to supply electricity to the grid.

            It saves the people of SA from needing to have a gas unit burning gas on idle at all times.

          • Donald Bartley

            More like 2 minutes, if it could supply all of SA. Which it can’t.

          • solarguy

            Interesting delusion!

          • Joe

            David, the global comparison measure is on a “per capita” basis and Australia is one of the worstst! Using this “only 2%…” is the weasels way of avoiding responsibility and trying to justify not taking any action. India and China with 1 Billion people each naturally produce, in total, more CO than Australia with 24 million people but on per capita measure India and China are far better than Australia. India and China are going with RE because the health of their people demands it, they are choking on the air pollution from burning FF.

          • David

            Ask yourself why its on a per capita basis – that is how the UN set it up in order to ensure China and India got a free pass. Australia’s 24 million people with less than 2% of the worlds CO2 being generated are being asked to shoulder the costs while 2.3 billion people from India and China who generate over 50% of the worlds CO2 get a free ride.

    • Mark Roest

      Re “RE has been going for over 30 years and is still failing all around the
      world and reliant for its existence on extensive government support as
      with out those subsidies RE fails”
      Just what are you smoking? Have you tried reading non-Murdoch info on the Net?

      • David

        Hi Mark check out this – at the rate of this growth when do you believe RE will fill the whole pie chart – its still less than 2% in 2016 – looks like you need to improve your reading – http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j4vWGHwsrcc/VpAzZof9MdI/AAAAAAAABqs/oMS2Z0piPUc/s1600/Slide1.png – ps I stopped smoking 30 years ago – its bad for your health 🙂

        • Ren Stimpy

          Other renewables (CMO units) 0.02 in 2006 -> 0.08 in 2014
          A doubling every 4 years. Therefore
          0.16 in 2018
          0.32 in 2022
          0.64 in 2026
          1.28 in 2030
          2.56 in 2034
          5.12 in 2038
          10.24 in 2042

          Total energy (CMO units) 3.2 in 2006 -> 3.73 in 2014
          A growth rate of 16% per 8 years.
          Total energy 7.83 in 2046

          “When do believe RE will fill the whole pie chart” ?

          Around about 2039 or 2040, using only your data.

          Of course, that doesn’t consider energy efficiencies or the increase in pumped hydro and biomass generation, which will bring the energy requirement for RE down by a several CMO units.

          Why don’t you show us the 2016 chart Dave so we can see if we’re on track?

        • Ian Franklin

          You should read up on disruptive technologies (eg digital cameras, mobile phones, computers etc), which reach a point where they rapidly replace the existing technologies. Renewables and batteries are on the cusp of a dramatic change. I suspect that electric cars will follow this trend also.

          • David

            Ian I lectured about strategic change one of my favourite examples was the Swiss watch industry being offered digital watch technology and declining it the decimation of their high% of the watch industry was swift and brutal yet the analogue watch remains and while they do not have the same% they still have a healthy share. My problem with the electric vehicle is that the first mass produced ones were in the first decade of last century and they still only have a single figure % of the world market 30 years after the Japanese car market took it on seriously last century. Everybody drools about Tesla but its price range puts it out of reach of the vast majority of vehicle buyers and will for the remainder of this century. I don’t subscribe to the “my way or the highway” philosophy of the RE fanatics I believe like the Swiss there is a place for both.

          • Ian Franklin

            I confess that I still have an analogue watch, but what does this say about batteries, solar power and electric vehicles. You cite your own expertise, but I prefer to listen to other experts in the field. Try, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hoB7HN4B0k.

          • David

            Tony raises some good points – however conventional transport will not be obsolete in 2030 nor 2040 or 2050 – it may be obsolete by exclusion in some cities of the world as they remove access for traditional vehicles from their streets. Except of course for the traditional vehicles being used when they are building new roads, skyscrapers, tunnels etc along with making deliveries into the stores during the night mostly or day on a needs basis these functions will continue with traditional methods throughout this century and into the next.

          • Ren Stimpy

            Tesla Model 3

            https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/model3

            “Our most affordable car yet, Model 3 achieves 345 km of range per charge while starting at only 35,000 USD before incentives.”

            https://www.choice.com.au/transport/cars/eco-friendly/articles/tesla-model-3-costs-versus-savings

            “For example, let’s say an owner tops up their car at home six nights a week and makes use of a Supercharger station on the seventh. This would cost $12.36 a week for up to 280km of driving, or over a year, $642.72 for more than 14,500km. Households with solar panels will likely pay less.

            The Tesla Model 3 is comparable to Audi’s similarly sized A4 sedan. The 2.0 TFSI variant uses 7.5L of petrol for every hundred kilometres travelled – a figure calculated based on the car’s performance in Audi’s testing facilities. NRMA’s most recent petrol report cites an average cost of 109.9 cents per litre. Driving 280km a week in the Audi would cost $23.08, or $1200.11 over a year.

            So the switch to the electric Model S represents a 46% saving of
            $557.40 [per 14,500km]. This provides some context on the kind of savings we can expect from its mass produced sibling, the Model 3. “

          • David

            Ren no disputing Tesla is a fine car and will be great for rich urbanites. However Australian 2016 new vehicle sales saw a UTE (Hilux) become the best selling vehicle followed by a small sedan (Corolla) SUV’s accounted for 38% of the remaining market – So the tesla is not relevant as a comparison to over 80% of the Australian market and your comparison to AUDI is even less relevant as they account for less than 5% of vehicle sales. So while Tesla is good at that price and design it is a non starter in Australia.

          • Rod

            I wonder who bought all those Hilux utes?
            Tony’s tradies maybe. Courtesy of a $20,000 instant tax write off.
            Would that count as a FF subsidy?
            Do something similar for EVs and see what happens.

          • David

            Rod your obviously a personal and political attack commentator in these forums – however its important you get facts right Tony’s grant for tradies was $5000 in 2014 – in 2015 he was stiffed and replaced by PM MT and JB and in 2015 they intoduced the $20K LOAN to spend on tools, equipment and/or vehicles. A loan is significantly different to a grant and can be applied to any type/make of vehicle as was the 5k. You still missed the elephant in the intelligent conversation Ren and I were having that is Tesla does not have a small sedan, UTE nor a SUV that slots in that $20-40k bracket and likely never will. So consequently is only useful to 5% of the Oz new vehicle market.

          • Rod

            So, whatever subsidy is on offer for utes (work vehicles) doesn’t translate into sales?
            Your point is the biggest seller is utes. Mine is there is a reason for that skewing the figures.
            My other point stands. If a subsidy by way of tax deduction or loan was on offer for EVs would that influence sales?

          • David

            Gosh its hard work when folk are locked into their position – my point was not solely about the UTE – it was the fact that 80% or more of new car sales involved purchase of a UTE, SUV and/or small sedan between 20-40k of which Tesla cannot provide such vehicle – and if they could – the grant or loan you are fixated on could be used to purchase a EV or a traditional vehicle or one run on moonbeams. The other part of the equation is the subsidy or loan can be used to purchase TOOLS and EQUIPMENT not just vehicles it was ‘and/or vehicles’ again could be Utes, Trays, Vans, Station Wagons etc etc and was generally only available to someone with an ABN.

          • Rod

            If your main argument is type of vehicle for similar purchase price you don’t understand why many will buy EVs.
            Fuel cost is greatly reduced but the other biggie is minimal maintenance.
            Not just the cost but the PITA of getting service and repairs.
            And then there is that “Green” feeling.

          • David

            Rod I am fully aware on why folk buy a vehicle and if you believe cost doesn’t come into the equation you oughta get out more.
            And we have now come full circle as cost of fuel (Electricity) in SA is now the highest in the world.
            Maintenance the jury is still out on that particularly if you talk to some one who has had to replace a major component.
            Lastly service and repairs will be a major issue for Australians as expertise will take generations to develop and distance to and from service centres a huge issue. Australians have voted with their feet re the EV feel good factor – Prius and other EVs avalailable for decades and hybrids available for decades also have barely scratched the surface of new car sales.

          • Ren Stimpy

            It wasn’t a comparison of the Tesla to the Audi per se, it was a comparison of the cost of charging an EV to the cost of fueling a very fuel efficient combustion engine vehicle on a per km basis. The EV won on cost by nearly 50% (and if the comparison was with a Hilux the EV would have won by more than 50%).

            When EV operational cost is better than 50% lower than combustion engine operational cost, it’s only a matter of time before the market is disrupted. The operational cost will actually be ‘significantly’ better than 50% lower with charging from solar panels and other free EV charging options. Yes a larger variety of EV vehicle types need to be brought to market, and that will happen as the cost of EV powertrains comes down now that production is starting to ramp (with gigafactories etc). Every big-brand automaker now has EVs in their range (and several have fully electric SUVs). It’s all starting to happen in the US, Europe and China – and yes Australia will lag those large markets by 2-3 years in EV mass adoption, but it’s inevitable that we will, because if we don’t our economy we’ll get hammered on international cost competitiveness.

            Btw, when most of our vehicle fleet is electric, a large chunk of that big orange energy segment (oil) on your pie chart above will disappear as surplus to requirements, because 80% of the energy content in oil is wasted, mainly as heat in combustion engines. With EVs, 80% of the energy is utilised to drive the wheels.

    • Ren Stimpy

      Most of that electricity rise above CPI was due to network gold plating. The network monopolies convinced the state governments that electricity demand would rise like the clappers from 2008. They then proceeded to overbuild the network like the clappers, and charged it all back to consumers. What did electricity demand actually do? It fell, significantly. We (consumers) paid for $billions worth of network infrastructure and projects that were not needed.

      • Rod

        Probably the same Oz wide, but in SA we had a couple of additional factors.
        One Summer, probably 1998 (ish) we started to have transformer melt downs in substations due to heat waves AND warm nights along with the high uptake of heatpump ACs. So, we had a huge substation upgrade program.

        Also, with the sale of parts of ETSA the regulator set onerous and costly minimum service level agreements. The result was duplicate and triplicate redundancy built into the lower voltage transmission network.

  • Steve

    “We went from laughing stock to leader in six weeks, with support in the state, nationally and internationally.’’ Yes we did!
    Solar on every roof with battery storage – that will truly shut the problem and the conversation down for good! Solar and battery storage is the climate strategy for the masses! Just do it!

  • Joe

    I live in Sydney and can I say that…..Premier Jay is da MAN ! The first thing we all need to realise is that Chris Kenny and the rest of the Coaler FanBoy crew at The Australian ( aka Rupert’s Liberal Party Newsletter ) are never to be taken seriously. We all know what their agenda is and ‘The Facts’ will never stop them in spreading their misinformation or even telling lies. The sad thing is that there are way too many ordinary punters out there that actually believe the BS that these dudes spit out. But if Big Mal and his hand puppet Joshie F. can get away with telling lies then why not The Australian Newspaper etc ? What Australia is crying out for are leaders like Premier Jay that will stay the course on what is ‘right’ for the future by doing now what needs to be done even in the face of the putdowns coming from all the vested interests as well as those media hard right nutters that create headlines that are always anti RE. Keep it up Premier Jay !

  • MaxG

    Love this Weatherill guy… forget political correctness BS and say it how it his — people will understand this much better than Orwellian speak.

    • Marc Hudson

      SA Goverment has been backed into a corner by the federal climate and energy policy vacuum (actually, worse than vacuum – chaos). South Australia cannot afford to sit back and wait, hoping that the Federal system will deliver the goods. Weatherill deserves credit for acting in the spirit of Don Dunstan, in having a go at solving these problems. It’s probably too little and too late, but at least he isn’t bullshitting on about clean coal (I mean, seriously, in 2017 people are still talking about clean coal? ffs).

  • Steve159

    One does have to give credit to Morrison, who today was on radio conflating the Big Banana and the Big Prawn, with SA’s Big Battery.

    Very clever, albeit completely malevolently disingenuous.

    Thank the gods for Weatherill, who can call out the bs of Morrison and co.

  • Roger Thomas

    His takedown of Frydenberg was epic and well deserved! I loved every second of it! Go [email protected]