Here's the CSIRO on nuclear energy, specifically small modular reactors.

This was two weeks ago.

"The status of nuclear SMR has not changed. Following extensive consultation with the Australian electricity industry, report findings do not see ... ... any prospect of domestic projects this decade, given the technology’s commercial immaturity and high cost. Future cost reductions are possible but depend on its successful commercial deployment overseas ...

From Peter Dutton: "Today, I initiated a formal internal process to examine the potential for advanced and next-generation nuclear technologies to contribute to Australia’s energy security and reduce power prices ... ... This review will be led by Mr Ted O’Brien MP, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who will report to the Coalition policy committee, chaired by Senator the Hon Marise Payne, and the Coalition party room ...

Worth stepping this out. This is the PM's message today. All very clear. 1. Get your booster. 2. Get access to antivirals if you’re eligible. 3. Wear a mask if it’s appropriate. 4. And stay-at-home if you are sick. On point 4, this is what the CMO said in a statement yesterday. "The AHPPC has reiterated its advice on reinfection periods, testing and isolation, mask wearing, vaccine boosters and treatments; and called on employers to allow work from home if feasible".

Sticking with the spirit of ten years of energy policy debacles.

Lest we inadvertently enable another ten years of absolute nonsense at the country's expense there's a couple of things I need to get off my chest about nuclear and the Liberals and Nationals. 1. It's fine to have a debate about nuclear. I doubt we'll need it in Australia, but if you think we need to hit net zero by 2050 (and we do), everything should be on the table, including nuclear.

2. But if we are having this *debate*, it can't be devoid of context.

The PM was asked this morning whether the government introduced a carbon tax when it introduced the safeguard mechanism in 2013. Morrison said this: "No, the difference is, as would you know, how the thresholds work and the fact we put incentives in place". "What Labor is doing is binding them on this and issuing penalties on those companies, so they couldn’t be more different. What Labor has is a tax, a sneaky carbon tax and that’s not good for regional Australia. It is not good at all".

🧵Dave Sharma on @RNBreakfast says net zero is the government’s policy. He says Matt Canavan lost the argument on net zero and green hydrogen #auspol Sharma says there are different views in different parts of the country. He says no single issue drives voters, including in Wentworth #auspol

Scott Morrison says a 43% target isn't safe for the Hunter, not safe for Gladstone, not safe for our manufacturers, not safe for jobs.

Ok, let's consider the recent past, and look forward to the election terrain. 1. Morrison tried before Glasgow to land a higher 2030 target. He was rebuffed by the Nationals.

🧵Just one more quick observation on the moving parts. Angus Taylor says critics won’t be happy until they’ve got a carbon tax. I can speak for all critics but this would be my counter. If we were starting climate policy from scratch you would not start here. That’s the problem. We have a live test of this we can all draw on. When John Howard started from scratch in 2007 he started with a carbon price and an emissions trading scheme because that was the most efficient approach. Centre right leaders used to favour markets.

I've found today pretty hard. Have to be honest about that. There has been so much nonsense, so much time wasted – and reporting that looks at climate change through the prism of whether particular strategy wins elections is a big part of the problem. Global heating is an urgent problem. The planet is on the line. The future comforts, opportunities and prosperity of our kids are at stake. This is not Scrabble, or three dimensional chess, or the atomic wedgie hour. This is serious. And yet this reluctance to be serious.

Kerry Chant: "So in terms of the Doherty modelling, what they're saying is around 80% you have options and choices. It's not to say you're not going to have to calibrate and respond your level of restrictions, what you permit ... ... it may be that we actually have indoor mask-wearing for years in certain settings ... that you're only permitted to go to certain high risk venues if you're vaccinated and show proof of vaccination ...

Haven’t really wanted to engage substantively with that @apatrickafr piece today because it would dignify drivel with a response. But I do want to make the following clear. @samanthamaiden is doing stellar work with these critically important stories. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly doesn’t comprehend public interest journalism, or worse, wants to circumvent the mission. Anyone who twirls their moustache & wonders where all these noisy women have come from has somehow managed to miss that we’ve been their colleagues.

A bit lost in right/left/words/bah is the adventures of a caller to Peter Dutton’s office on Tuesday 👇 Er, Extinction Rebellion, wut 👇

Another example from today's #qt Morrison: "Hazard reduction is important, if not more important,
than emissions reduction, when it comes to protecting people from fire and hotter, dryer longer summers in the future". Let's look at that statement quickly. The first thing to say to that is it is ALL important. Mitigation. Harm minimisation. Adaptation. It's all got to happen. Now you can say hazard reduction is most important if you like, even though that's a value judgment, not a fact.

From the ANAO: "The guidelines published on 2 August 2018 identified that the Minister would approve CSIG funding, with her decisions to be informed by recommendations from an assessment panel that had been endorsed by the Sport Australia board." "Throughout the granting process all parties acted as if the Minister was able to be the approver. No section 11 directions were issued to Sport Australia in 2018–19".

A few quick thoughts on leadership spills. After more than ten years of this tiresome bullshit, there are a few things to learn I reckon. If a challenger needs to arrive breathlessly to declare intent, they likely don’t have the numbers. If other people have to resign from the front bench to create the appearance of a stampede, the insurgent is likely behind, not in front. They have a need to build momentum with colleagues. Another buyer beware clue.

Fake news, a thread. According to new work from the University of Canberra in cooperation with the Reuters Institute and the University of Oxford, a majority of online consumers in Australia, 62%, are concerned about what is real and what is fake on the internet. This level of local concern is higher than the global average and, the more interested in politics you are, the more you worry about fake news. The new research suggests a proportion of news consumers in Australia are taking steps to try and verify what they are reading.

No column this weekend. For the past couple of weeks I've been working intensively with @knausc to investigate what happened with the death tax fake news during the campaign. We've published the results of that deep dive this morning on @GuardianAus First, the origins of the misinformation: a Daily Telegraph article on 21 July 2018 reporting the ACTU supported an inheritance tax, an uncritical follow-up discussion on the Sunrise program the following day, and a media release by Josh Frydenberg on 24 January 2019.