While Morrison says he will not attempt an early election, the New Year is seeing the re- emergence of debate on issues such as border controls. It is pointed out that, while “Labor softened its asylum-seeker policy at its national conference last month by formally endorsing doctor-ordered medical evacuations off Manus Island and Nauru, it remains committed to boat turnbacks when safe to do so, offshore processing and regional resettlement.” But Morrison claims “they will abolish temporary protections visas and last year voted to end offshore processing as we know it in the parliament. And they had no clue what they had done’’ (see Dispute over OZ Border Policy).

However, the most “issues-attention” has been given by Treasurer Frydenberg and Home Affairs Minister Dutton and there is no sign yet of a more comprehensive presentation of Coalition policies even though Turnbull has gone and he seems to receive less media coverage. The decision by Morrison to make the present official visit to Vanuatu and Fiji is obviously driven mainly by the increasing attention being given by the Chinese to Pacific Islands. But the development of a comprehensive Coalition policy seems more important and the Foreign Affairs Minister should be able to handle the Pacific Islands.  True, a more knowledgeable/presentable person than Payne could be useful (she was initially appointed by Morrison after Bishop resigned). Indeed, it would be desirable to have a major re-shuffle of Cabinet before the election, including the re-appointment of Abbott and Abetz.

An important election issue has emerged from the revelation in an OECD report that Australia relies on revenue from company taxes for 16 per cent of budget revenue, which is the highest share in the advanced world and compares with an advanced nation average of 9 per cent. As David Uren points out, “the failure of the Turnbull government to break the Senate gridlock last year to legislate a phased reduction in the company tax rate for big businesses to 25 per cent has left Australia among a group of 18 nations with a standard company tax rate of at least 30 per cent, nearly all of them developing nations” (see Australia Has High Company Tax Rate).

Another important election issue is, of course, energy policy and the promise to reduce electricity prices. I drew attention in the 12 January Commentary to Alan Moran’s analysis showing there is scope to start doing this by effecting a reduction in government subsidies. Recent evidence of statements by warmists which have been shown to be badly wrong could also be used as a basis for justifying the moderation of Australia’s policy.

These include a survey by the UK’s The Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by a former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, from 1983-89. The incorrect warmist sayings are summarized below for each month of 2018:

January 2018:  Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: Study. PARIS (AFP) – Earth’s surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday (Jan 17) which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions. A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet’s temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

February:  ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, new research reveals. The Pacific nation of Tuvalu — long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels — is actually growing in size, new research shows. A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery. It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

March: BBC forced to retract false claim about hurricanes. You may recall the above report by the BBC, which described how bad last year’s Atlantic hurricane season was, before commenting at the end: “A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5.” I fired off a complaint, which at first they did their best to dodge. After my refusal to accept their reply, they have now been forced to back down

April: Corals can withstand another 100-250 Years of  climate change, new study. Heat-tolerant genes may spread through coral populations fast enough to give the marine creatures a tool to survive another 100-250 years of warming in our oceans.

May: Climate change causes beaches to grow by 3,660 square kilometers. Since 1984 humans have gushed forth 64% of our entire emissions from fossil fuels. (Fully 282,000 megatons of deplorable carbon “pollution”.) During this time, satellite images show that 24% of our beaches shrank, while 28% grew. Thus we can say that thanks to the carbon apocalypse there are 3,660 sq kms more global beaches now than there were thirty years ago.

June: Antarctica not losing ice, NASA researcher finds. NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.

July: National Geographic admits they were wrong about notorious starving polar bear-climate claims. The narrative behind the viral photo of a polar bear starving, reportedly thanks to climate change, has been called into question by the National Geographic photographer who took it in the first place.

August: New study shows declining risk and increasing resilience to extreme weather in France. This risk factor for French residents of cities stricken by a disaster has been falling with every passing decade.

September: Coral bleaching is a natural event that has gone on for centuries, new study. Coral bleaching has been a regular feature of the Great Barrier Reef for the past 400 years, with evidence of repeated mass events dating back to well before Euro­pean settlement and the start of the industrial revolution.

October: Climate predictions could be wrong in UK and Europe. Current climate change predictions in the UK and parts of Europe may be inaccurate, a study conducted by researchers from the University of Lincoln, UK, and the University of Liège, Belgium, suggests.

November: Number and intensity of US hurricanes have remained constant since 1900. There’s been “no trend” in the number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the continental U.S. and the normalized damages caused by such storms over the past 117 years, according to a new study.

December: Alarmist sea level rise scenarios unlikely, says climate scientist Judith Curry. A catastrophic rise in sea levels is unlikely this century, with ­recent experience falling within the range of natural variability over the past several thousand years, according to a report on peer-­reviewed studies by US climate scientist Judith Curry.

Today’s Australian also runs an article by climate expert Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer disparaging the claim still often  made that 97 per cent of scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. Plimer asks “Is that really true? No. It is a zombie statistic. In the scientific circles I mix in, there is an overwhelming scepticism about human-induced climate change. Many of my colleagues claim that the mantra of human-induced global warming is the biggest scientific fraud of all time and future generations will pay dearly” (see Plimer Disparages 97% Consensus on Global Warming).

There are many other examples of errors, in some cases deliberately made by “scientists” including for reasons not actually scientific, which could be used as a basis for reducing the emissions target set in Paris by Malcolm Turnbull when PM, but who had no scientific expertise on the causes of climate change.

Another important development in this context is the establishment by climate expert Viv Forbes of a Saltbush Club to conduct a national campaign to support Australia’s immediate withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. Along with many others I have joined this club, which has now issued a press release pointing out, inter alia, that “Australia will suffer badly from the destructive energy policies being promoted in the UN’s war on cheap, reliable hydro-carbon fuels such as oil, diesel, gas and coal and the backbone industries that rely on them – mining and smelting, farming, fishing, forestry, processing and manufacturing” (see EXIT PARIS AGREEMENT- Break the Climate Chains Now).

Unfortunately, Morrison has already said that Australia must stick with the Paris Agreement even though it is not binding. He has probably been heavily influenced in making this decision by advice from his department, which includes staff who are strong believers in the dangerous global warming thesis. But, one way or another, he needs in the Coalition’s interests to over-rule such advice.

US Wall Policy

In the Commentary of 12 January I argued that “the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem” arising in part from the absence of adequate control on the border with Mexico and noted that Greg Sheridan took a similar view. Subsequently, Trump has  “declared he will never back down from his border wall to protect Americans, paving the way for a prolonged deadlock over what is already the longest government shutdown”. This view was strengthened somewhat by “a Washington Post-ABC News poll which shows that while a majority oppose the wall, support for it has grown over the past 12 months, from 34 per cent to 42 per cent” (see Trump on Walls).

It may also be strengthened by a survey published by Breitbart showing that government agencies and prominent individuals make use of walls. The survey shows extensive photos of such walls including those constructed by Hungary, Israel and Bulgaria (on the border with Turkey) as protection against illegal migrants. The survey covers a number of prominent US politicians (including Hilary Clinton) who have opposed the funding of the Mexican wall but who have themselves used protective walls in the US (see photo of Hungary’s Border Wall).

No doubt the controversy over the wall and the partial shut-down in Washington will continue. The latest development is an attempt by Speaker Pelosi to alter the State of Union address by Trump scheduled for 29 January. It appears that her reasons for alteration are rejected even by Democrat-leaning media  (see Pelosi Tries to Postpone State of Union Address).

Morrison Government Policies

I have already expressed some concern that the Morrison/Frydenberg government is portraying itself as too close to the Turnbull regime.  This seems to be reflected in  statements and policies which are now being made and/or implemented by those two. For a start, it is now reported that, instead of distinguishing his government from Turnbull’s,  Morrison has in fact offered Turnbull in New York that some of his travel costs on “government business” could be met (see Turnbull’s Travel Costs Offered by Morrison). This comes on top of his acknowledgement of having frequent contact with Turnbull in NY.

And, although Morrison is attacked front page in the Fairfax press on failures (sic) to implement climate change policies or indeed to take them further (see Fairfax Attacks Morrison for Abandoning NEG), Fairfax overlooks his retention of emissions reductions and increased renewables while continuing, contradiction ally, to claim that power prices will be reduced and that he has appointed a minister to do this. No indication has been given as to what attitude the government takes to the IPCC report to be released on Sunday next and which is already reported to once again be endorsing the dangerous warming theory. This despite it being the umpteenth such report which has made incorrect temperature predictions and failed to attribute to reasons other than CO2 increases which may have caused temperature increases (see attached letter published in The Australian by expert analyst William Kininmonth on CChange).

As to the budget, the Australian’s David Uren notes that while “the Morrison government appears to have decided that budget repair is mission accomplished,

big spending decisions — the $4.6 billion fix for school funding and the $9bn fix for Western Australia’s GST — are unlikely to be offset by savings. There is still a drought package, a small business tax package and a federal election to come” (see Morrison/Frydenberg to Ease Budget Policy?). Yet while both Frydenburg and Morrison have acknowledged that new spending should be offset by savings, they do not give any undertaking of such action. Uren rightly concludes that “there should be a greater buffer against adversity in the budget before we start spending surpluses that are yet to arrive”.

As to the ABC, apart from the appointment of the very pro-ABC Ferguson as acting chair (for which there has been no explanation), Morrison seems happy that the inquiry by the Departmental head will provide a satisfactory basis for possible changes. Yet controversies continue about what actually happened to instigate the sacking of Guthrie and why Ferguson could not have been requested by the Minister for Communications to make obviously-needed changes as a condition of her appointment. In the attached article (ABC Stuck with Greenism) former Chair Maurice Newman identifies many but his reference to the failure to handle complaints (0.5% upheld !), and the rejection of an analysis by expert Meteorologist Bob Fernley-Jones, indicate the need for immediate change (and for there to be a change which would give credibility to the government).

As to foreign policy, the increased foreign activity by a China, now run by a Marxist who has “shuffled” leaders to centralized power in himself,  requires much greater expressions of concern by Australia. This applies to inter alia a number of Chinese activities including in the South China sea. Defence Minister Pyne, who addressed a dinner I attended on Wednesday evening, said that Australia will be participating in an official group which will be sailing through the SC sea but did not say whether that group would accept any Chinese restrictions and what it would do if the Chinese acted as it did against a US ship (see Chinese Threaten US Warship).

Morrison’s attempt to explain that Australia has good relations with both the US and China fell short of what our foreign policy requires, which would include endorsement of US policy supporting independent nations and which recognises how important to us the US is militarily. Pyne mentioned that we have increased defence spending since the cut-backs under Labor and said the aim is to lift defence spending to 3% of GDP from the 1.9% aim in 2018-19. But we are small and the planned new subs have not yet been started and will not be ready until 2030.

This situation requires closer support of US defence/foreign policies, including the de-nuclear policies in regard to Iran, which has now attempted a bomb plot in France where the counter-government for Iran is situated (see France Threatened by Iran).  The US describes Iran as “the world’s top sponsor of terrorism” and it has conducted terrorist activity in countries distant from itself. Australia should recognise and support the US policy on Iran.

In yesterday’s Commentary I suggested that the immediate media responses to the Summit missed two important points – Kim is no long in a closed shell and Trump has not been given adequate praise for bringing him out. The media has improved today but remains too equivocal about the prospects because very little agreed substance has emerged so far. We are left, therefore, with judgements about whether Kim and Trump will do what they say they will –and to what extent. The most readable assessment has been made by Cameron Stewart, who is posted in the US by The Australian and is well-equipped to assess Trump and other US leaders: nobody is equipped to assess Kim, of course. I am using Stewart’s article to draw attention to the main points of concern below  (see Stewart on Summit).

• De-Nuclearisation  under the agreement as is consists simply of a promise, with no details and time scale and no indication of existing nuclear (and other) weapons held by Kim or of possible outside inspectors. This goes no further than the previous “agreement” by Kim’s father and Grandfather with previous US Presidents. Trump says, however, it will begin “very, very quickly”. What if it doesn’t? Presumably Trump would call the whole thing off. He has indicated thus and, while his stature would suffer, he would be unlikely to hold back. He has also indicated publicly that he may have been wrong to trust Kim – “You never know, Right? You never know”.
  But if that happened, Kim would be left with none of the favourable promises which Trump has made, such as reduction/removal of sanctions. So it is in his interests to make a start, the more so as he has boasted on NK TV of the potential benefits. The possibility exists here that Kim will argue that he is entitled to have as many Nukes as other “small” countries (such as Israel) and Trump could agree to a debate on how many, etc. So, we could end not with denuclearisation but with a reduction and a proper inspection system. That would be an obvious improvement.
• Stoppage of war games between the US and South Korea, which has alarmed some in US congress. Trump has agreed to suspend these but would presumably re-start them if Kim makes no start on denuclearisation. In fact, it appears that Trump has stated that the US will continue training US troops with SK forces. That also means that there will be no removal of US forces from SK at present or in the immediate future.
• Removal of sanctions is pictured as for the future but Kim was encouraged to make progress to get rid of them by the specially designed film shown him by Trump near the end of the 4.5 hours meeting and displaying all the “goodies” from becoming a more capitalist economy. While it is possible that China will reduce the sanctions it imposes, the Trump ones may have as much significance.
• Critics of Trump say the form of government, and the treatment of NK’s citizens, should make mean that NK should not be the subject of negotiations by the US. But there are many members of the UN with dictatorial governments and poor treatment of citizens, albeit not as bad as NK. Venezuela sounds almost as bad.
• There are some immediate benefits to Trump and others, such as the return of POWs still held after the Korean war. And, as mentioned yesterday, if the agreement does proceed to unfold, it could provide a model for a similar agreement with Iran et al.

As Stewart says, “although sceptics may have history on their side, history can change — and there is more cause for optimism this time than in the past. The Trump-Kim summit, the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader, was the most public and dramatic thaw in relations with the US in North Korea’s history”. Malcolm Turnbull has also said that Trump deserved credit for giving peace on the Korean peninsula a “red hot go”.

More on Western Civilisation

The Charman of Ramsay Centre, John Howard, has been on 2GB Sydney supporting that body’s objectives and the NSW Premier has also taken to air with Minister Stokes with the latter pointing out “If it’s OK to have fairly commercial arrangements when it comes to the scientific environment, why’s it not OK to have a (relationship with a) centre in humanities?”(see Howard on West).

More significantly, today’s Australian carries a damaging article by a resident scholar, Michael Rubin, at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, which I attended in 1987 (see Rubin on West). He suggests that VC Schmidt’s attempt to lionize the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies is mistaken and the CAIS has made the ANU an “academic laughing stock”. In effect, its leader (and some of its visiting speakers) have dismissed concerns about repression of women in Arab countries and have promulgated ant-western and anti-Semetic policies. While denying any support for Trump, Rubin says  “The ANU is sick. The output from its Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies is a symptom. The Ramsay centre could be just the cure the ANU needs”.

Daughter Lisa Performs at Recital Hall, Tuesday June 19

I can truthfully recommend this performance by daughter Lisa with Sonya Lifschitz on Tuesday June 19 at 6.30. The program is attached and its highlight is “the infamous Bach Goldberg Variations afresh, with it’s intricate ingenuity in luminous clarity as this duo team builds a kaleidoscopic tapestry of color, rhythm and touch”.

The media response to the Summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un has been to welcome it but express reservations because there is little of substance to date. According to The Australian, “the intentions are clear but the details are missing”; Greg Sheridan asked whether the summiteers “laboured mightily to bring forth a mouse”; and The Age asked whether it is “a game changer”. But while these are legitimate questions, as are some of the other comments (see North Korea Must not be Allowed to Deceive Again and Trump, Kim Exchange Praise at Singapore Summit), they miss the two most important points.

First, Kim has come out of the closed shell into which he and previous NK leaders put themselves to the detriment of their citizens. Now he has to face the rest of the world, and his neighbours South Korea in particular, and to improve NK’s economic and political relationships. Of course, he will still be a socialist dictatorship, but after all the publicity on NK TV there is no way he can go back to the old regime and continue to subject his citizens to dire straits because in  due course he has to open his country to both emigrants and immigrants as well as allowing a much greater degree of private enterprise. And even if he does not denuclearise, he will have to stop the threats against the US and other countries and limit NK’s stockpile of nukes to those which many other countries have – and which the US and others would find it impossible to oppose as a major item of defence.

Second, even if it takes some time to develop substantive changes, Trump should be given credit for having got so far. Without his initiative, Kim might well still be in his closed shell both economically and defence-wise. To put it another way, even if no further substantive changes emerge, Trump deserves praise for bringing Kim into the open and reducing the risk of nuclear combat, which is the greatest risk facing the world. Of course, there remains the risk that Iran (which has downplayed the NK exercise) will still pose that threat and it needs to be reduced in some way. But it is possible that the NK/US summit provides a “model” which Iran will have to follow, particularly if the signatories to the Iranian nuclear deal now agree to withdraw as Trump has done or at least agree to negotiate a new deal. In a word, whichever way this develops now, Trump has further established himself as the world leader and left the Europeans further behind.

Western Civilisation Debate Continues

The latest development in this debate is that the Vice Chancellor at ANU has indicated that he would prefer not have his present salary of around $610-25 pa and  will not accept his predecessor’ salary of $970-85pa. He has given no reason for this but one assumes it reflects a view about “fairness” or some other aspect of his leftish views. An incident has also developed at Melbourne University involving a contemporary dance company that divides audience along racial lines and requires whites to sign a declaration before entering the theatre. The Race Discrimination Commissioner has reacted to the effect that exempted racial discrimination in arts works!

More importantly, The Australian has published an important article by well respected Kevin Donnelly entitled “The West is lost and our unis founder in farce” (See Re: Donnelly on West). The article refers to  a Boyer Lecturer, Professor Pierre Ryckmans, who recounted a story of a lecturer being attacked for talking about Chinese literati painting instead of revolutionary peasant art. As it happens, when in Canberra my wife and I met the scholarly writer and his wife and I later went a presentation given by him in Melbourne. At that presentation he argued that, for closed mind reasons which have come up in the current debate, universities should be abolished!

Note that the article refers to the number of academics opposing the Ramsay centre being established at Sydney having reached 150 (it was 100) and that the proposal is condemned as “European-supremacism writ large”.

What with the likely winners of both the women’s and men’s Australian tennis being Swiss and the address by Trump at Davos, the Swiss are in the News. Once again Trump found a phrase which helped rebut the criticism of his “America First” statement by adding “but not America alone” and, with China in mind, emphasising the need for “fair” trade as well as “free” . Separately, it is reported that Trump approved  increased duties affecting about $US10bn of imports but it is not clear whether this was “justified” on a fair trade assertion. An article in The Economist, republished in yesterday’s The Australian, says that the actions were “broadly in line with the steer from the US International Trade Commission” and were weaker than sought.

There will doubtless be media criticism of his use of Davos to again attack the media itself (the boos he received when doing so are unusual at the  more official-type Davos).  But judging by the BBC report on his reception (see BBC on Trump at Davos), his decision to attend (and his meeting with May confirming that he will make a visit to the UK and will have tea with the Queen) will not have adversely affected his image.  According to the BBC report “ mention his name in the bustling foyer of the Congress Centre, and the reaction is surprisingly benign.Many attendees shrug indifferently, rather than launch into an angry rant”. Of course, because of its small size, “protesters” were not allowed in Davos but there was ample opportunity for critics at the Forum. I have seen no comments on Mother Nature’s climate decision to present attendants with what seemed on TV to be large amounts of snow!

US Policies on Defence and Iran

In earlier Commentary I have referred to policy statements by US Foreign Secretary Tillerson and US Defense Secretary Mattis and suggested that their capacity to make such statements seems to reflect Trump’s recent (unannounced) decision to extend a much greater delegation on relevant policies than Obama allowed.

An interesting development is that Tillerson has now persuaded the three European countries who signed up Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran to  identify possible problems and how they might be dealt with. On 27 January Tillerson is reported as saying that “The working groups… are looking at the scope of what to address in the Iran deal, as well as how to engage Tehran on possible fixes to those issues”. “What we have agreed to do is work with our European counterparts, the E3 most particularly, and ultimately the [European Union], to identify what areas we believe have to be addressed and a mechanism by which we can address those.” (see Tillerson on Iran Nuclear Deal).

On 20 January Defense Secretary Mattis published a new Defense Strategy indicating that  “Though we will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we’re engaged in today, the great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of US national security,” Mattis said in his opening statements at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.The new strategy is “fit for our time,” Mattis said. “Though he identified a number of threats to the US like North Korea, Iran, ISIS, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda, the NDS was focused more on China and Russia.  “We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from each other. Nations that do seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models,” Mattis said.In the document itself, China and Russia are both mentioned by name in the introduction” (see Mattis Statement on US Defence Strategy Jan 2018).

The text of this important 11 page statement is in the attached. It implies that the US aims to restore a defence policy which will extend more widely and effectively in geographic terms. Of course, it is one thing to attempt an upgrading of defence policy, but quite another to find the money to effect the upgrading of equipment et al. It is reported that Trump proposes to ask Congress for an increase of 7 per cent in defence in 2019 and is likely to find that difficult to obtain (see Trump Proposes Big Increase In Defence Spending).

An important aspect of the new Defense Strategy is the emphasis on alliances. The following extract (see page 10) indicates the broadness of the approach adopted by Mattis.

“Enduring coalitions and long-term security partnerships, underpinned by our bedrock alliances and reinforced by our allies’ own webs of security relationships, remain a priority:

• Expand Indo-Pacific alliances and partnerships. A free and open Indo-Pacific region provides prosperity and security for all. We will strengthen our alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific to a networked security architecture capable of deterring aggression, maintaining stability, and ensuring free access to common domains. With key countries in the region, we will bring together bilateral and multilateral security relationships to preserve the free and open international system.
• Fortify the Trans-Atlantic NATO Alliance. A strong and free Europe, bound by shared principles of  democracy, national sovereignty, and commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is vital to our security. The alliance will deter Russian adventurism, defeat terrorists who seek to murder innocents, and address the arc of instability building on NATO’s periphery. At the same time,  NATO must adapt to remain relevant and fit for our time—in purpose, capability, and responsive decision-making. We expect European allies to fulfill their commitments to increase defense and modernization spending to bolster the alliance in the face of our shared security concerns.
• Form enduring coalitions in the Middle East. We will foster a stable and secure Middle East that denies safe havens for terrorists, is not dominated by any power hostile to the United States, and that contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes. We will develop enduring coalitions to consolidate gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, to support the lasting defeat of terrorists as we sever their sources of strength and counterbalance Iran.
• Sustain advantages in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. derives immense benefit from a stable, peaceful hemisphere that reduces security threats to the homeland. Supporting the U.S. interagency lead, the Department will deepen its relations with regional countries that contribute military capabilities to shared regional and global security challenges”.

Yesterday the Australian Minister for Defence, Senator Payne, acknowledged the importance of the Mattis statement made a week ago but neither she nor Turnbull appear to have made any statement. In the report below The Australian’s National Security Editor, Paul Maley, suggested  that “We look like strategic amateurs”. I would not be surprised if Payne has yet to meet Mattis. We await an announcement that out pitful defence spending will be increased from below 2 per cent of GDP to reach that size by 2021.

For Australia a joint announcement of the defeat of the ISIS caliphate was made on 10 December by the PM and Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence and the announced withdrawal of Australian strike aircraft (but the retention of Australian training assistance and Special Forces to contribute to the on-going threat from IS groups) was made on 22 Dec by our Defence Minister, Marise Payne. In neither case was there any reference to the possible influence on Islamist beliefs elsewhere or on Australian policy in regard to Islamic influences on governments generally. My Commentary did suggest however that the reported “widespread protests in Iran provides an opportunity for political leaders in the West (including Australia) to call for a more democratic society and protection of human rights in that country”.

Since my Commentary was circulated it is apparent from press reports and TV news that the protests in Iran are not only widespread across the country but seem also to be widespread across  Iranian citizens. Calls for the resignation of  President Hassan Rouhani (“elected” in 2013 and “re-elected” last May) and of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni have been accompanied by calls of “Death” for them, and TV footage has shown attacks on police in the streets.

The article below published in the Wall St Journal on 1 Jan rejects the proposal that Trump say nothing and argues that Iranian protesters are looking for American support. Trump himself has tweeted in favourable and has said that the US is “watching” for breaches of human rights. Two other articles attached provide analysis of probable reasons for the outbreak of protests on such a wide scale. Note that the first article claims that “Tehran is estimated to be channelling up to $26 billion to Damascus in investment and aid each year, and 1000 Iranians have died in the conflict there, according to an official statement. The true number is likely to be far higher”. Second article here.

There is potential for a major change in governance in Iran, particularly a reduction in the power of Islam and a diminution of the power of the Supreme Leader, which Australia should support. Turnbull should follow Trump  and make a brief statement (but not a tweet!) saying that we support in Iran more democratic governance and increased protection of human rights. Any such development would also have an influence beyond Iran into other areas in the Middle East.

I headed my Commentary on Sunday “Are Our Politicians in the Real World? and suggested that some of the behaviour and events in Canberra and one or two other states in the last couple of weeks indicated that our political body is, like Alice in Wonderland, acting outside the real world. I added that “It would be surprising if tomorrow’s Newspoll does not show a further decline in the Coalition’s rating, which would again emphasise the need to replace Turnbull if the Coalition wants an election chance”.

That further decline has now happened, with the Coalition’s TPP down to 46/54 from 47/53 (a potential loss of 20 seats) and Turnbull’s Net Satisfaction Rate falling from minus 12 to minus 20 (the same as Shorten’s). Turnbull’s only “saving grace” was that he sustained a lead as preferred PM, albeit at a slightly reduced 10 points (43/33). According to Weekend Australian’s editorial, “this has been a terrible week for Malcolm Turnbull’s government. Tossed around like a tinny in an ocean storm, it has been incapable of steering its own course”. Political editor, Crowe, judged that “Turnbull is now in a political trough that is deeper and longer than anything predecessors such as John Howard experienced” (see Crowe on Newspoll 21 Aug).

Relevant in interpreting developments is Chris Kenny’s article in Weekend Australian suggesting that there is a “widening chasm between journalists and the mainstream, the audiences they are supposed to serve” and that “this great divide has played out dramatically of late” ie writings by most journos reflect their view of the world and/or what they think it should be like, rather than what it really is. But any increased influence by the well-known leftist media also raises the question as to why leading politicians are currently unable (or unwilling?) to play an effective leadership role. Yet Turnbull’s enunciations are so close to those coming from the ABC/SBS and suggest he is a leader who will not reflect what the “real world” polling calls for (interestingly, yesterdays news on ABC’s breakfast program did not even mention the Newspoll result).

For example, the reported criticisms on yesterday’s ABC news of the wearing of the burka in Parliament by One Nation Leader were in similar vein to Turnbull’s. Both failed to link the wearing of the burka with the serious problem that exists with what is called “extremist Islam” but which extends beyond the extremist version. They also failed to acknowledge that the wearing of the burka in public is not permitted in some countries, particularly those with a higher proportion of Muslims. My Commentary predicted that the real world was likely to lift Hanson’s polling – which it did.

But what are the implications of Newspoll for Turnbull’s leadership of the Coalition?

The surprising thing is that there has so far been no suggestion that he should be replaced before Parliament resumes in two weeks time.

• Even Andrew Bolt dodged the issue by suggesting yesterday that the Turnbull government’s “grip on power is now so shaky it may be too dangerous to sack him. Sack the Prime Minister and the Liberals risk losing power within months” (see Nobody to Replace Turnbull?). So, are we to continue with a government that is “shaky” (or worse)?Bolt did not explain how a government led by Turnbull would prevent a further reduction in policy credibility over the next 18 months before the election, let alone a probable further reduction in polling as it tried to campaign for re-election (perhaps the High Court will decide that so many MPs are “illegal” under Section 44 that Turnbull has no alternative but to then call an early election!).
• No editorials in today’s main newspapers even discuss the question of survival or the implications for achieving reforms in policies. Will we continue to have a government “tossed around like a tinny in an ocean storm” and incapable of steering its own course”?
• Notwithstanding his reference yesterday to Turnbull being in a worse political trough than Howard, political correspondent Crowe claims today that an analysis of surveys by Newspoll shows that Turnbull has sustained his position as preferred PM and that the government has tended to hold its support in regular Newspoll surveys. But he makes no reference to what counts in an election viz the TPP (see Crowe on Turnbull 22 Aug).
• In today’s AFR journalist Aaron Patrick surveys the experience of the 8 MPs who played a lead role in voting Abbott out of his PM role and notes (cautiously) that  “Given Turnbull narrowly avoided defeat at last year, a defeat at the next election might prompt some political historians to argue that the Group of Eight led the Liberal Party into a terrible mistake”. However he quotes Peter Hendy (one of the eight) as saying that he is after a seat in the Senate, is “happy with the decision I made” and that “by the time we get to the election they will have a very, very high chance of winning.” (see Patrick on Turnbull 22 Aug).

Perhaps the only sensible article today is Judith Sloan’s headed “Minister should be red-faced over green schemes” (see Sloan on Energy Policy).She points out that “ The reality is that the energy market is heading for complete disaster notwithstanding all the desperate tinkering by this government” and that “ the bottom line is that countries with higher penetrations of renewable energy have higher electricity prices. It is a perfect fit. And while we may worry about the impact on households, the more important consideration is the future of businesses and the jobs they provide. It all comes down to those dastardly “green schemes”.

But would the continuation of a government, led by someone who commissioned a report on how to further reduce CO2 emissions and increase usage of renewable, be likely to effect changes which would substantially reduce vote-losing electricity prices and allow a recovery in investment in coal-fired generators?

The Message from Barcelona & N Korea

Available here is an article by John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad”. He provides an important analysis of the potential risks facing the US (and the western world generally) from recent events in N Korea and the increase in terrorist activity in (among others) Barcelona. The following extract from Bolton’s article suggests Australia and others are behind the real world in addressing potential (and actual) threats.

“North Korea is manifestly more than a Northeast Asia problem. Kim Jong Un would unhesitatingly sell any technology it possessed, including nuclear, to anyone with hard currency. Iran is one such potential customer. Terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, befriended by wealthy governments or individuals, could also be buyers. Accordingly, if the regime-change options fail, then a preemptive military strike to eliminate the North Korean and Iranian programs may well be the only way to avoid decades of nuclear blackmail by Pyongyang, Tehran and inevitably others, including the terrorist groups who might acquire weapons of mass destruction. Israel has twice before reached this conclusion, in 1981 against Iraq and in 2007 against Syria. It was not wrong to do so”.

But while the latest Newspoll has put Turnbull 11 points ahead in the Better PM category (only 8 points ahead last time), there was no change in Newspoll’s TPP (still at 47/53 as it was a fortnight ago). Also, even though the Coalition’s primary vote did improve slightly (from 35 to 36), this is 6 points lower than it was when elected a year ago and still leaves unchanged the problem with the basic policy being pursued by Turnbull. Relevant here too is that Labor’s primary vote also increased to 37 (from 36) (see Newspoll 24 July).

Moreover, Turnbull’s nomination of Peter Dutton a Minister-Designate for his proposed new Home Affairs Ministry seems to have helped lift his (Dutton’s) status and given him support as a possible new leader.  This follows a complimentary article by Janet Albrechsten in Weekend Australia headed (“The Liberal Leader we Deserve”), with the following Trump-like lead-in by Janet, viz “‘Super-minister’ Peter Dutton can make Australia great again”.

Today’s Australian has given Dutton support in its Letters Column from a number of sources, including John Stone who suggests Janet Albrechtsen’s “outstanding article” backs the getting rid of Turnbull and that, on his election as leader, Dutton should have Abbott  occupy the most senior ministerial position — “that of defence and homeland security, for which nobody could be more eminently qualified.”

Another considerably interesting development is IPA Review for July, of which I received an advance copy and, through ex IPA Chair Charles Goode, a copy of explanation by Executive Director, John Roskam, of both the cover and his interpretation of Turnbull’s address in London (see IPA on Economic Liberalism).

Roskam’s explanation is worth reading in full but he notes that “the cover is a picture of Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten shaking hands that was taken during the last election. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are both wearing a dark suit, a white shirt, and a red tie – which means it’s not just their policies that are the same. Between them we’ve inserted the words that ask a key question about Australia – ‘The end of liberalism?’”

Roskam also refers to Turnbull’s comment in London that ‘The sensible centre is the place to be. It remains the place to be’ and he suggests that “being in the ‘centre’ is entirely devoid of any philosophical direction. Being in the ‘centre’ defines you by what you are not – it means merely being neither ‘right’ or ‘left’. But sometimes in life and in policy you need to choose a side – saying you’re in the ‘centre’ just avoids making a choice. Being in the ‘centre’ doesn’t tell you whether taxes should go up or down nor does it tell you whether freedom of speech is more important than avoiding someone being offended”.

Meantime, while visiting today an alumina refinery in Queensland, Abbott has reportedly expressed an even stronger position on energy policy.  “We’ve been going in the wrong direction for far too long, for the best part of a decade,” he said of the RET. He said Australia needs “need a jobs first power policy, not a policy that obsesses about reducing emissions”. According to the AFR’s chief political editor Coorey, “Now he believes the RET should be abolished. As well he opposes plans by the government to introduce a Clean Energy Target, or CET, which would mandate that from 2020 onwards, a certain percentage of energy would be generated from clean sources. Mr Abbott has previously derided the policy as a “magic pudding”.

Today’s various developments confirm that Turnbull’s present leadership is on shaky ground. And so is the Coalition.

As I experienced a bout of flu, I have had a “enforced” quiet period for a week (my last Commentary was on Monday 17 July). During that past week, however, it was impossible not to notice Turnbull being unusually active on a number of political fronts attempting to improve the Coalition’s — and his own– polling. My conclusion is that any improvement is unlikely: rather the opposite.

His most important decision was to announce a major change in Ministerial  responsibilities which, he claims, implements a major reform and was presented as a “big” policy announcement. But, as discussed further below,  it involves no reform and is designed more to combat the accusation that he has neglected the conservative side of the Coalition and to show Abbott and his cohorts that he (Turnbull) can do more than just debate possible major reforms, as he did before with possible tax reforms. Looking back, it seems likely  that, while overseas at the G20 meeting (7-8 July) and an official visit to France and the UK shortly after, Turnbull was using discussions with various leaders to help develop an activist strategy designed to lift his appeal back home.

An obvious issue requiring attention was Turnbull’s climate policy and his response to the Finkel report, but his only public comment on such policy after returning from overseas was his 15 July address to the LNP convention in Brisbane.  At that convention he said nothing about Finkel but  told the assembly how important coal is. Interestingly, this was reportedly greeted with applause, but Turnbull has yet to give any hint as to just how important coal might be in his policy, if of any significance at all.

His proposal to establish a new Ministry of Home Affairs headed by Immigration Minister Dutton will maintain there the responsibility for immigration but will also assume responsibility for ASIO, Australian Federal Police and two other security/intelligence agencies. Despite claims that such a possible change has been under Turnbull’s consideration for some time, these announced changes lacked detail  and will not become operative until early next year (assuming the needed legislative changes pass the Senate). Thus Turnbull’s Media Release concludes by saying:

“These reforms are significant and complex; they will take time to fully implement. Planning to implement the changes to the Australian Intelligence Community, the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio and the strengthening of the Attorney-General’s portfolio will be undertaken within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Attorney-General, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as Minister-designate for Home Affairs, and the Minister for Justice will work with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to develop these plans with a view to their implementation from early 2018” (see Turnbull Release on Home Affairs, 18 July).

On that very same day, the AFR reported that Turnbull’s activism had experienced difficulty at a private dinner in persuading senior businessmen to assist with Coalition funding. According to this report, “Malcolm Turnbull upbraided the business leaders for not helping out more with donations and generally not being more vocal in advocating the government’s agenda. This invited complaints from the corporate leaders that much of the government’s agenda was not friendly to them. One CEO listed as examples the imposition of the bank tax, the implementation of changes to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, or an effects test, an ongoing aversion towards substantial industrial relations reform, and even the decision to phase in company tax cuts over 10 years, putting big business last”. Note that “Mr Turnbull’s attempts to reforms energy policy were also discussed at length” (see Turnbull V Corporates).

Then, on 20 July The Australian reported Abbott  as saying “the new ministry… was a ‘massive bureaucratic change’ and challenged the Mr Turnbull to reveal what advice he’s been given to support the new department. “The advice back then was that we didn’t need the kind of massive bureaucratic change which it seems the Prime Minister has in mind, and I can only assume that the advice has changed since then,” Mr Abbott told 2GB. “No doubt the Prime Minister will give us more information in due course about the official advice that he’s had on this.”

“Turnbull then hit back at Abbott’s claims that he was advised against a national security overhaul during his time as prime minister, saying he has received no objections to the home affairs super ministry from security agencies. He denied he received advice from agencies urging him not to go ahead with the super portfolio”. ‘No. The answer is I have not received objections from our agencies,’ Mr Turnbull told 3AW. ‘Again, the bottom line is that I’m the Prime Minister. I make these decisions’. “This is essentially a question of getting the national security architecture in the best shape to keep Australians safe. “We do not design these arrangements for bureaucratic convenience. We design them in order, we make changes always to optimise them so that our agencies can do a better job to keep Australians safe. That’s the objective.”

Also on 20 July, Andrew Bolt wrote “WHAT a scandal if Malcolm Turnbull has indeed given Peter Dutton control of all our big security agencies just to stay Prime Minister. That may seem a conspiracy theory, but Attorney-General George Brandis has given a joke of an excuse for this huge concentration of power. Turnbull has stripped Brandis of responsibility for the spy agency, ASIO, and given it to Dutton, the powerful conservative keeping Tony Abbott off Turnbull’s back. Dutton, now the Immigration Minister, will over the next year also get the Australian Federal Police and other security agencies to become the new Home Affairs Minister.

Brandis on Tuesday was made to publicly approve of the changes he’d privately resisted, and offered a humiliating self-criticism of the kind given by Chinese prisoners. Brandis suggested that losing ASIO was just what he deserved after neglecting our safety”. ‘Though my focus has been on national security, it has not been able to be an exclusive focus,’ he admitted. ‘There are always other things within the Attorney-General’s portfolio which also occupy my attention.’ But Dutton ‘can give 100 per cent of his time and his attention to national security’. “Which is false. Dutton is no more able to give national security ‘100 per cent of his time’ than was Brandis” (for full text of Bolt, see Bolt Explains Reasons For Home Affairs).

On 22 July, Paul Maley of The Australian claimed there has been no Cabinet agreement on the net merits of such changes. Indeed,” a picture is emerging of a rushed, shambolic process that critics across the government believe­ was driven by political expediency rather than good policy … some of the key ministers affected by the changes were not told of the Prime Minister’s decision to go with the idea, which had been under consideration for some time, until just a few days ­before Tuesday’s announcement” (see Turnbull’s Own Decision on Home Affairs, 22 July). If this report is correct, it would seem that Turnbull pushed the decision almost as a matter of desperation.

Greg Sheridan, who has probably more knowledge and contact with the workings of overseas intelligence agencies than any other journalist (or serious commentator on foreign policy), is extremely critical of Turnbull’s decision and suggests that “ The politics of this all have a long way to run”. He rightly concludes that while “Turnbull may well think he is shoring up his support in his party’s right wing. It’s a way of dealing with the Abbott problem without dealing with ­Abbott. But it looks too unstable and ­embodies such poor process that it is unlikely to be effective”. Sheridan also notes that

”Four structural factors make its re-election extremely difficult. First, there is the mathematics of its one-seat majority, Labor’s necessary gains are so small. Second, there is the disunity in the party, which is extremely unlikely to go away. Third, Labor will enjoy a huge funding advantage and a similar massive advantage from the de facto third-party endorsements of policy positions from all the quasi-government bodies it has created or staffed with people who share a centre-left world view, which the ­Coalition in government has done nothing to change. And finally, in our hyper-driven social media ­environment, six years of ­Coalition government will seem to the electorate like a lifetime” (see Sheridan on Home Affairs 22 July).

Conclusion

While Abbott raised a serious question about Turnbull’s decision to establish a Home Affairs Ministry, so too have many other commentators, most notably Greg Sheridan. Whatever the effect on Newspoll, that would have to be attributed to Turnbull himself. But Opinion Poll effects aside, the “initiative” by Turnbull must surely be interpreted as foolish and likely to add to the Coalition’s electoral problems. Sheridan’s comment that “it looks too unstable and ­embodies such poor process that it is unlikely to be effective” is a let off. It smacks of a leader who doesn’t know which way he is going but is trying desperately to survive as leader. That, after all, is Turnbull’s principal interest. As Henry Ergas wrote in Weekend Australian, it is somewhat ironic that Turnbull received a prize honouring a man (Disraeli) of whom it is said that “he never thought seriously of anything except his career” (see Ergas on Disraeli).

In Friday’s Commentary I highlighted the editorial in The Australian saying “that Islamist terror cannot be bought off; it wants nothing less than a totalitarian caliphate for the planet. Jihad denialism, which wilfully obscures the wellsprings of Islamist violence, has limited appeal in Australia although its supporters include progressive elites with their media megaphones”. I also drew attention to the failure of Turnbull to make any reference to the likely source of the terrorist bombing in Manchester being Islamic and that he seemed “largely to be missing” from various references by other ministers to sources and the need for policy changes.

Since then it has become abundantly clear that belief in extremist Islam was the source but Turnbull has still made no Islamic reference.  In her article in today’s Herald Sun, headed Time for truth on Islam, Peta Credlin rightly says “Right now in this country, we’re having two conversations; one where we use the  word “Islam” and one where we don’t. Last week in parliament, the PM condemned the terrorist attack in Manchester and, while replete with words of solidarity, his multiple speeches all failed to mention the religion in whose name the killings had occurred”. Credlin confirmed that she had been unable to find any Islamic reference on Turnbull’s web site.

Andrew Bolt also referred yesterday to the incredible reply by the head of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, to a question at the Senate Estimates hearing by Pauline Hanson on whether refugees are a source of terrorism. His answer was “I have abso­lutely no evidence to suggest there is a connection between refugees and terrorism”. Needless to say, Bolt has given numerous examples of terrorist activity by refugees (see attached Bolt on Lewis). He asks whether “our ASIO boss is blind to the facts – and to a clear and present danger?” and notes that Lewis has been quoted by a leading Fairfax reporter, Mark Kenny, as “confirming” (sic) that Hanson was wrong to imply any connection.

It will be recalled that, shortly after Turnbull became PM, he quoted Lewis as an authority and that he (Turnbull) had been advised then by Lewis that there is no religious connection. I drew attention then (in December 2015) to comments by Lewis reported in the Herald Sun “warning against being too critical of the Muslim religion as that may impact negatively on ASIO’s access to information. Astonishingly, Lewis states that he doesn’t ‘buy the notion the issue of extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim religion’. This is an extremely worrying comment by Australia’s top counter-terrorist (possibly prompted by Turnbull) and suggests he needs a refresher course on the religion by someone like Durie” (Rev Mark Durie is of course a real expert on Islam who has written on Islamic beliefs). Lewis subsequently went quiet but has now awoken.

It is sometimes said “once bitten twice shy”. But Lewis is clearly not shy of making errors which a head of ASIO should not make. He should be replaced ASAP. The question also arises as to why Turnbull has not made a meaningful statement on what is an important policy issue for Australia. He should do so –also ASAP.

Trump’s Overseas Visit

Trump is on his way home after the meeting of G7 (no Russia) and forcing the other 6 to accept a watered down communiqué  (such meetings usually produce 10 pagers full of good intentions!). Possibly the most important reason for the “short” version is that Trump refused to say whether the US accepted the Paris Agreement on climate change. It appears that he said he would make a decision next week (see attached Trump on Climate Change).

This attached report says that “While the declaration included remarkable language highlighting that the U.S. stood apart, the other G7 members expressed some relief that Trump had not outright rejected the accord and said they remained hopeful he would come around ‘The United States of America is in the process of reviewing its policies on climate change and on the Paris Agreement and thus is not in a position to join the consensus on these topics’ the leaders wrote. ‘Understanding this process, the Heads of State and of Government of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom and the Presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission reaffirm their strong commitment to swiftly implement the Paris Agreement, as previously stated at the Ise-Shima Summit’.”

It also refers to Trump’s claim that  a major topic at the Summit was terrorism and that he had succeeded in persuading some to step up their defence contributions under the NATO agreement. Some of such claims are made for home consumption and gaffes have been made, but the attached analysis by Greg Sheridan in the Weekend Australian provides an excellent summary with a balanced conclusion viz “The question is this: will Trump’s wildly dysfunctional style and the frenzy of his political enemies overwhelm the good things his administration is trying to do, in a foreign policy that is much more conventional, both for good and for bad, than we ever ­expected?” (see attached Sheridan on Trump O’Seas Visit).

In my view, the most remarkable conclusion that emerges from Trump’s oversea visit is that, despite the extensive criticism of his political amateurism and “not suited to be President” by “experts” and political opponents, Trump has shown that he can handle not only the leaders of other countries but the important policy issues which are discussed. I can think of quite a few other leaders who, even with political backgrounds, never really made it. Of course, that may still happen to Trump.

It has become clearer and clearer that the questioning in Washington and in left-wing media of his attitudes and relationships is designed by political opponents (and the left wing media) to push his polling lower and create the possibility of an impeachment. It is also apparent that his predecessor established or maintained sections in the bureaucracy designed to make it more difficult for Trump to make substantive changes in policy or even to prevent them altogether.

I have previously mentioned the use by Obama of executive powers to determine environmental policy without involving Congress. My “spy” in Washington has now drawn my attention not only to the establishment within the EPA (ie not a political appointment and not therefore readily dismissible on a change of government) of  a Scientific Integrity group but that this group remains operative within the EPA and is busy arranging inter alia a “conference” in June of like-minded scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists. I recommend that you read the full text of the attached article just published in the Wall St Journal (see attached Trump & Scientific Integrity).