13 November 2025: NET ZERO DITCHED???

Things to talk about today: 1. LIBERAL PARTY FINALLY DITCHES NET ZERO

2. CENTRELINK GIVING $250 BONUS???

3. RENTAL CRISIS

4. ABORTION BILL

NET ZERO

So after years of pretending to be passionate climate warriors, the Liberal Party has finally scrapped their ridiculous net-zero-by-2050 pledge. And yes, it’s absolutely the right decision, but let’s not pretend the Liberals suddenly discovered basic economics overnight. They’re just losing voters to One Nation and panicking.

Some things we need to understand:

Australia produces barely 1% of global emissions. Meaning you could shut this entire country down tomorrow and the temperature of the Earth would have NO CHANGE AT ALL. The global numbers are dominated by China and India, who are increasing emissions every single year. If you actually care about climate change, that’s where the focus should be. Not on forcing Australians to suffer through expensive electricity bills and pointless symbolic targets.

So environmentally, net zero does absolutely nothing. Zero benefit. But that doesn’t make it harmless, it makes it worse. Because while it delivers no environmental result, it absolutely crushes the economy.

Here’s how:

1. Net zero forces companies to use energy sources that are far more expensive and far less reliable.

2. When energy prices go up, every cost inside a business goes up: manufacturing, transport, refrigeration, everything.

3. Businesses have to raise the prices of what they sell just to survive. (inflation)

4. To afford these higher costs, companies also hire fewer people.

5. That means fewer jobs, lower wages, and more insecure work.

6. Investment slows because who wants to build a business in a country where energy is expensive and unstable?

7. Productivity drops because companies spend more money just keeping the lights on.

8. The entire cost of living rises, and Australians pay the price.

That’s the real impact of net zero. It’s useless for the planet and disastrous for the economy. A pure lose-lose policy pushed onto us by a radical, woke, climate-obsessed lunatics.

So yes, the Liberals finally ditching net zero is the right call. But do not give them credit. They did not wake up enlightened. They simply looked at the polls and realised Australians are sick of two identical socialist parties. It’s like that moment in Animal Farm where the animals look from pig to man and back again and can’t tell the difference. That’s Labor and Liberal. Economically, they’re the same beast: same taxes, same debt, same regulations, same love for big government.

And today’s vote shows how chaotic they are: 17 Liberal MPs wanted to keep net zero, 28 wanted it gone, and 4 had no idea what they even believed. This party is hopelessly divided and still clinging to Paris Agreement alignment anyway. They didn’t scrap net zero, they half-scrapped it in a confused, panicked, poll-driven mess.

And these are the same Liberals who introduced the 2022 Climate Change Act, locking Australia into legally binding emission targets. That law created exactly the environment-killing, economy-killing pressure we’ve been dealing with: energy caps, investor uncertainty, higher regulatory burdens, and the steady destruction of our once-cheap electricity system.

Now, for the rebuttals:

“But the science says we need net zero.” Yes, the global science. Not “Australia acting alone while everyone else increases emissions by more than our entire output.”

“Renewables will make energy cheaper.” Then great! Let them compete naturally. If they’re cheaper, no need for government mandates. The fact that mandates exist proves they’re in fact not cheaper.

“Net zero creates jobs.” Only in the same way burning down your house creates construction jobs. It’s not real growth and I've already explained how net zero causes unemployment.

This should have been scrapped years ago.

CENTRELINK

This is going to be a very economic paragraph so skip it if that's not your thing.

There’s talk of a $250 bonus for Centrelink recipients.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH CENTRELINK. It's a giant, centralised, bureaucratic machine that traps people in long-term dependence. First of all, obviously I support it for those genuinely unable to work (disability, illness, age pension etc) although a negative income tax might work better for this.

The problem is, centrelink undermines any incentive to work. It rewards doing nothing, and drains money from productive taxpayers who are already suffocating under high living costs.

Additionally, because benefits decrease rapidly as a person earns more income, it puts people in a poverty trap. Let’s say someone on JobSeeker gets $300 a week from Centrelink. Then they work a few casual hours and earn an extra $100. Centrelink says, “Okay, now that you’re earning more, you don’t need as much help,” so they cut their payment, maybe by $60–$70. Then the person also has to pay tax on their $100 wage (maybe another $10-$20 gone). So after those deductions, the person might only keep $10-$20 of the $100 they earned. In other words, they worked extra hours but barely gained anything, or could even end up slightly worse off if they lose other benefits like rent assistance.

This punishes productivity and discourages people from taking extra shifts or pursuing higher-paying work. In contrast, Milton Friedman’s Negative Income Tax (a system where people earning below a certain income threshold receive direct payments from the government that gradually decrease as their income rises, ensuring work always increases total earnings.) avoids this trap by reducing benefits gradually and at a constant rate, ensuring that every extra dollar earned always makes you better off. It aligns welfare with economic incentives instead of working against them.

RENT CRISIS

The rental crisis is getting worse, not better. Over 2.3 million renting households are now in rental stress. Vacancy rates are near record lows. Rents are climbing far faster than wages. This is a real crisis, but once again, it was created by government intervention.

1. Governments over-tax property investors.

2. Governments over-regulate landlords.

3. Those investors sell their properties because it’s no longer worth it.

4. That means fewer rental properties on the market.

5. When supply goes down, prices go up.

6. The government then blames “greedy landlords” and adds even more regulation.

7. The cycle repeats and renters suffer.

ALBANESE IS CLEARLY A SOCIALIST!

ABORTION BILL???

In South Australia, abortion is currently legal after 22 weeks if the mother’s “mental health” is at risk. That’s extremely broad, especially considering 22 weeks is roughly the point where a baby becomes viable outside the womb.

Sarah Game, an independent formerly of One Nation, introduced a very reasonable bill. It said that after 22 weeks, abortion should only be allowed if:

• the mother’s life is at risk, or

• the baby has a severe abnormality incompatible with life, or

• another fetus is at risk.

That’s it. Before 22 weeks, nothing changes. Zero restrictions. But after the baby is viable, the bill simply ensured that late-term abortions are only performed in extreme situations.

This is a totally normal standard in many countries, considering the baby can SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB? And yet, somehow, the SA parliament voted it down. They wouldn’t even consider protecting viable babies???

Okay bye.