This isn't Zimbabwe. No, it isn't. Zimbabwe had the stabillity...

This isn't Zimbabwe. No, it isn't. Zimbabwe had the stabillity of an unchanged government/ruler for 37 years. It didn't exactly do them a lot of good.

If all of the bull excrement about the NEG could be burned for energy, we wouldn't need an NEG. The Australian business community are one of the major suppliers. They want stability. Of course they want stability. Me, I want competition. Slight difference. With stability, the big guys can squeeze the smaller guys out while making ever larger profits. With competition, the coal, gas, hydro, wind, solar and you name it suppliers can all compete on a level playing field without any government subsidies and without anything like an MRET (Mandatory Renewable Energy Target) to corrupt the system. The suppliers with the best combination of reliability and price for each part of the market (eg, peak, baseload) then do well. But it's not the suppliers who do best. It's the consumer who does best. That's why Australian business wants the NEG and why Peter Dutton is spot on correct in opposing it. Go for it, Peter, what took you so long? Pity it's too late to save your party and too late to save the nation's power system, but if you can explain it all really properly to the electorate - explain the high cost of renewable energy and that cutting CO2 emissions is an expensive exercise in futility - then you might just save the day. Bill Shorten's popularity might even be a bit of a help there.