Chris

[Chris @serialpest22]

@sammy_lee76 New name, Sad Sammy

[Chris @serialpest22]

The energy transition was never going to deliver cheaper electricity prices overall. The claim that renewables would reduce power costs was misleading.
What @ChrisBowenMP, @Greens and @AustralianLabor often meant was that any price increases under the transition might have been smaller than those that would have occurred from continued reliance on fossil fuel generation alone.

What is frequently overlooked is that policy choices associated with the energy transition have also raised the costs of fossil fuel generation, for example, by increasing regulatory and environmental compliance burdens, and by making financing more difficult or expensive for fossil fuel projects
@TheKouk @ChrisKohler
#auspol

[Chris @serialpest22]

@AshPolitik And where do you want the data stored @AshPolitik?

There are many uses of Ai so yes some of it will be a mini tech bubble while other use cases are truly sustainable for the future.

[Chris @serialpest22]

@JacintaAllanMP

[Chris @serialpest22]

Big Build corruption likely cost Victorian taxpayers billions — even without relying on the Watson report.
The Watson report’s rough $15B estimate (itself described as a “crude”/“very rough” guide based on industry experts) has been heavily debated. But independent evidence from leaks, analysts, and official audits shows material corruption-related costs were almost certainly in the multi-billion range under the Labor government’s Big Build program.
Key verifiable points:
• Leaked Metro Tunnel consortium report (Cross Yarra Partnership, warned government 2022–2024): CFMEU demands inflated labour costs by 22% above Victorian industry norms. This alone drove $196.4 million in extra labour costs on one major project from forced extra/non-productive workers (crane observers, traffic controllers, cleaners, HSRs). Contractors were told to pay up.
• Industry analysts (reported 2026): A “corruption/union premium” of 5–15% on labour costs was historically common on large unionised Victorian government sites. On big projects this adds hundreds of millions per project; scaled across the program, the aggregate impact is described as “very large indeed.”
• VAGO Major Projects Performance Reporting 2025: Reviewed 110 major projects ($149B+ TEI). While net overruns were modest overall (with some savings offsetting increases), there were significant transparency gaps on why costs and scopes changed. 35+ projects had major scope variations; post-change value-for-money reassessments were often weak or missing — exactly the environment where premiums and rent-seeking can hide. https://t.co/8llogwLYD9
• Documented mechanisms (multiple sources): Inflated rates, ghost/non-productive shifts, high-salary “delegates” doing little work, and site disruptions all tied to CFMEU control during the Big Build era. Specific examples include tens of millions extra on individual projects (traffic management, level crossing labour uplifts).
Bottom line: Other factors like scope changes, tunnelling complexity, and inflation played big roles in some blowouts (North East Link +$10.6B, West Gate Tunnel +60%, etc.). But the evidence of systemic labour cost premiums and non-productive practices points to several billion dollars in likely extra costs to taxpayers — plausibly in the $5–12B cumulative range across the $100B+ program. A full forensic audit would pin it down precisely.
This isn’t about one report. It’s about patterns confirmed in leaks, contractor warnings, and performance data. Victorians deserve accountability and cleaner delivery going forward.
Want to test or verify any of this? Drop the specific claim, project, or source here and I’ll pull the data, cross-check, or run the numbers with you. Sources are public (VAGO reports, leaked consortium docs, analyst commentary). Let’s get the facts straight.
@JacintaAllanMP @VictorianLabor @AshPolitik @TheKouk
#BigBuild #Auspol #Accountability

[Chris @serialpest22]

Big Build corruption likely cost Victorian taxpayers billions — even without relying on the Watson report.
The Watson report’s rough $15B estimate (itself described as a “crude”/“very rough” guide based on industry experts) has been heavily debated. But independent evidence from leaks, analysts, and official audits shows material corruption-related costs were almost certainly in the multi-billion range under the Labor government’s Big Build program.
Key verifiable points:
• Leaked Metro Tunnel consortium report (Cross Yarra Partnership, warned government 2022–2024): CFMEU demands inflated labour costs by 22% above Victorian industry norms. This alone drove $196.4 million in extra labour costs on one major project from forced extra/non-productive workers (crane observers, traffic controllers, cleaners, HSRs). Contractors were told to pay up.
• Industry analysts (reported 2026): A “corruption/union premium” of 5–15% on labour costs was historically common on large unionised Victorian government sites. On big projects this adds hundreds of millions per project; scaled across the program, the aggregate impact is described as “very large indeed.”
• VAGO Major Projects Performance Reporting 2025: Reviewed 110 major projects ($149B+ TEI). While net overruns were modest overall (with some savings offsetting increases), there were significant transparency gaps on why costs and scopes changed. 35+ projects had major scope variations; post-change value-for-money reassessments were often weak or missing — exactly the environment where premiums and rent-seeking can hide. https://t.co/8llogwLYD9
• Documented mechanisms (multiple sources): Inflated rates, ghost/non-productive shifts, high-salary “delegates” doing little work, and site disruptions all tied to CFMEU control during the Big Build era. Specific examples include tens of millions extra on individual projects (traffic management, level crossing labour uplifts).
Bottom line: Other factors like scope changes, tunnelling complexity, and inflation played big roles in some blowouts (North East Link +$10.6B, West Gate Tunnel +60%, etc.). But the evidence of systemic labour cost premiums and non-productive practices points to several billion dollars in likely extra costs to taxpayers — plausibly in the $5–12B cumulative range across the $100B+ program. A full forensic audit would pin it down precisely.
This isn’t about one report. It’s about patterns confirmed in leaks, contractor warnings, and performance data. Victorians deserve accountability and cleaner delivery going forward.
Want to test or verify any of this? Drop the specific claim, project, or source here and I’ll pull the data, cross-check, or run the numbers with you. Sources are public (VAGO reports, leaked consortium docs, analyst commentary). Let’s get the facts straight.
@JacintaAllanMP @VictorianLabor @AshPolitik @TheKouk
#BigBuild #Auspol #Accountability

[Chris @serialpest22]

@grok @GusLefty @AshPolitik @kazza264 @grok again linking corruption test to VAGO are neither relevant or appropriate to test commercial risks of corruption

[Chris @serialpest22]

@grok So if it doesn’t test the fact what make it legitimate? Estimated and extrapolation in the Watson report are common, to determine an estimate. Hayward using the VAGO report to suggests it somehow challenge those said assumptions seems implausible if it doesn’t look at 3rd party, 4th party or productivity means it misses the core point to argue the estimate techniques

[Chris @serialpest22]

Performance data in terms of people, 3rd parties or 4th parties or just estimates based on scoping changes @grok that’s central to the argument here and something VAGO cannot test.

Its performance tests are limit to policy positions for change against contractual outcomes and approval for such changes.

It doesn’t even test the commerciality of such changes in terms of pricing to market tests.

[Chris @serialpest22]

@TheKouk @TheKouk? Explain why private investment matters in government debt positions?

[Chris @serialpest22]

Hayward's report directly tests Watson's $15b estimate and finds it methodologically weak — a rough extrapolation from vague "expert" opinions with no proper modelling or evidence. It reviews CFMEU-related misconduct claims but concludes there's no substantiation for that scale of extra taxpayer costs on the Big Build, consistent with VAGO's findings that overruns stem more from scope changes and technical issues.

It isn't a dedicated forensic corruption investigation or supply chain probe. Those need specialised integrity or law enforcement tools. Hayward's is a targeted economic/policy critique of the estimate.

[Chris @serialpest22]

@grok @GusLefty @AshPolitik @kazza264 @grok so Haywards report isn’t fit to test corruption claims or estimates then?

[Chris @serialpest22]

VAGO audits focus on performance, procurement controls and value for money in major projects. They spot systemic risks but aren't full forensic corruption investigations into supply chains or exact extra costs.

Hayward's report finds Watson's $15b estimate methodologically weak — rough extrapolation without modelling. It links overruns more to scope changes etc per VAGO.

Neither uses modern 3rd/4th party supply chain forensics. Watson's was a qualified rough guide from misconduct patterns. Deeper inquiry needed for precise counterfactual.

[Chris @serialpest22]

@GusLefty @AshPolitik @kazza264 @grok So @grok basically both Hayward and VAGO reports were not fit for corruption investigations using modern techniques of investigation on 3rd and 4th party supply chains. Nor can they prove the 15b as counter factual

[Chris @serialpest22]

@GusLefty @AshPolitik @kazza264 @grok @grok did VAGO test productivity and right sizing of the workforce. Vendor allocation and forthparty usage or was it limited to just the review topic and not broader corruption / collusion tests

[Chris @serialpest22]

@grok @TheKouk @AshPolitik @TheKouk so a bit of truth but also a bit of fabrication

[Chris @serialpest22]

@TheKouk @AshPolitik @grok is this actually true? I’m to lazy to look but last I looked consumer sentiment was down, loan growth was down. Spending is more tied to inflation rather than discretionaries.

[Chris @serialpest22]

@TimRichardsonMP

[Chris @serialpest22]

@normboy562 You must be young? In the 70’s there is even jokes about the elderly dying once the weather get above 35.

“Watch out lads the Brits are panicking, buying fans, melting down, the old dying, and people are treating 30°C like a national emergency”