Today’s polling, not by NewspolI but by Ispos for Fairfax press, must have come as a bit of a surprise to those associates with that media group, as it also has for those supporting the Coalition. Most of the latter have been expecting an improvement in the Morrison government’s polling from the 46/54 TPP result last December but not by three percentage points to a 49/51 TPP. That is close enough to the election result in July 2016 under Turnbull (50.4/49.6) to lead the Fairfax media (and the ABC) to downplay it as much as they can.

But they also find it difficult to explain away the two percentage point increase in Morrison’s performance rate since December which means he is now a nine percentage points better performer than Shorten (49/40) and ten percentage points more preferred than Shorten as PM. (Strangely, Ispos have asked to interview me tomorrow morning, to which I have agreed).

Of course, this polling may be only a “one off” and we have to wait until the next Newspoll (which is probably next Monday) to see if it also shows a big improvement in the Coalition’s electoral hopes. But there can be no doubt that this poll provides a major “scare” to Shorten and Labor. Even the leftish political editor of the Fin Review has had to acknowledge this (see Coorey Says Test of Nerve For Labor). Note his comment on last week’s debate on whether to allow “exceptions” to border controls, viz

“There was a great deal of trepidation within the party last week over whether it had done the right thing by opening the door on boats, an entrenched political weakness which has cost it at least two elections this century”.

As I argued in last Friday’s Commentary, “Morrison’s attack on Shorten for showing weakness in handling Caucus is obviously correct (as the emergence of Deputy Albanese on TV suggests) and provides a useful stick for Morrison to use and argue that, if Labor were to win the election, they would again allow border controls to be breached. Morrison has already established that up to 300 refugees have obtained the approval of doctors to be transferred to Australia.  It seems likely that under Labor border controls would be eased and smugglers would again penetrate access in one way or another”.

It is not only the AFR which is having to pull its horns in. As Andrew Bolt points out in his article in today’s Herald Sun:

“So how to stop them? Labor’s media shills offer two fixes. First, suggests The Age: “The turnback policy is cited by experts and insiders as the most effective deterrent … It would be prudent to buttress this barrier.” Pardon? Turning back boats is the Tony Abbott policy which The Age was still damning in 2015 as “morally repugnant”, and “ruthless and despicable”. It’s a policy many on Labor’s Left still hate. So why did turnbacks go from “morally repugnant” to something The Age wants more of? Why? Because The Age knows Labor has put sugar on the table for the people smugglers, and if boats now turn up it could lose the unlosable election.  That’s why many Leftist journalists also insist Prime Minister Scott Morrison stop saying Labor has weakened our borders. He’s giving people smugglers ideas, they say. Guardian Australia’s Murphy even accused Morrison of “looking like you are whistling up new boats for a bit of cheap partisan advantage”.

Many leftist journalists insist Prime Minister Scott Morrison stop saying the policy has weakened  Australia’s borders. How crazy. The Liberals now can’t inform voters that Labor’s policy is dangerous? And how dumb do journalists think the bosses of those multimillion-dollar people smuggling cartels are? They don’t need Morrison to tell them what Labor has done — especially not with activists celebrating at high decibels” (see Bolt on Fairfax Support for Labor).

Bolt’s article today would have been written before the editorial in today’s Age, which has done some backtracking even to acknowledging with mixed views that “There is, however, a legitimate issue for this election about whether the ALP is the better party to manage asylum seekers. The left of the party has only accepted Mr Shorten’s approach with great reluctance”. The Age adds that it “reported from Indonesia on Saturday that asylum seekers stranded there since 2013 said the bill had not made them more inclined to take the risk of boarding boats, but one source, long known to this organisation for having links to people smuggler networks, said that if the ALP won government, Mr Shorten could face a test of his nerve”. But it then makes the astonishing addition that there is no reason why the ALP cannot face down the challenge from people smugglers just as resolutely as the Coalition, apparently forgetting what happened to attempts to control borders under the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments! (see the full text of today’s Age editorial, which should surely lead to a change in editor of a paper which claims it is “independent always”).

Of course, the asylum seeker issue is only one of several explanations for the narrowing of Shorten’s lead in the polls.As today’s Age also acknowledges, Shorten “may also be suffering from some of his tax policies. Many voters, including, surprisingly, 30 per cent of ALP voters, are worried about his plans to end cash refunds of franking credits. Still, it is the issue of asylum seekers that appears to be weighing most heavily on the electorate. To maintain his lead, Mr Shorten will have to prove his mettle both to voters here and also to those waiting in Indonesia for a sign of weakness”.

As electorally beneficial as the border control issue is likely to be, Morrison can’t rely only on using that as a stick to beat Shorten with. Other policies need to be finalized and presented, including the budget before the election.

In yesterday’s Commentary I drew attention to Labor’s success in forcing legislation through Parliament which allowed asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island to “doctor” themselves to Australia for treatment without ministerial approval (except for security reasons). I added that “it also remains to be seen how long he can run a minority government where there is an opposition which is able to force legislation right through Parliament and effectively change the Coalition’s policies on other matters too” .

I added that “there has already been a (failed) attempt today to establish a Royal Commission on some failure of access to disabilities and there will inevitably be a debate on aspects of the budget set to be presented in early April. That would provide Labor/Greens with opportunities to have amendments to the budget passed through Parliament not by the Coalition but by the Opposition”.

Some recipients of Commentary indicated that they did not understand my analysis and in particular my (and others) view that an early election might be called. Today we have an illustration of what I meant. A report in Weekend Australian reports that

Scott Morrison is on track for an unprecedented second defeat on a key piece of legislation within two weeks, with Labor “confid­ent” of passing a small-business policy in an alliance with Greens and independents. The government was consid­er­ing last night how to deal with another potential loss on the floor of the House of Representatives after it suffered the first defeat on legislation in nearly 80 years with the passage of Labor’s refugee medivac bill on Tuesday. The Prime Minister faces inter­nal spotfires as rebel Nationals MPs threaten to support Labor’s small-business overhaul in a damaging move that could split the Coalition, test the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and undermine Mr Morrison’s authority (see More Challenges to Minority Government).

As Parliament is sitting again from 18-21 February  before the budget there are likely to be further attempts to “govern” by Labor/Greens, including in regard to the alleged need for more “action” on climate change. Then there is the period after the budget but before the election when Parliament will again be sitting  from 4-18 April and when more attempts at governing by Labor/Greens/et al would be likely to occur.

All this suggests that it would be in Morrison’s own interests to call an early election, not now but as soon as possible after the budget has been presented.

Qld Left Labor Runs The State & Is Stopping Adani Coal Mine From Starting

Readers will be aware that the Indian owners of the Adani coal proposal in Queensland have been seeking approval for 7 years and thought they had it only to find that the Queensland Labor government has made a last minute attempt to stop it by asking an active environmentalist to advise whether the risk to an endangered finch would be too great. He duly did so advise.

Today’s Weekend Australian reports that “an extraordinary alliance of industry, unions and councils were last night in talks to lobby for Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s intervention to save the project that promises thousands of jobs.  The contentious review of Adani’s black-throated finch management plan was ordered by ­Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch’s department in December, just weeks after Adani announced it had funding for the mine. The findings of the review — chaired by Brendan Wintle, a Melbourne University academic associated with anti-coal activism — are set to delay construction of the mine, which cannot begin without state approval of the plan to protect the endangered bird. After Ms Trad yesterday called on Adani to “engage in the ­process” led by Professor Wintle, Adani chief executive Lucas Dow claimed the review’s “misinformed and conflicting findings” demonstrated the report was biased and must be scrapped. In a letter to the government, Mr Dow outlines five key areas where he says the review contradicts the previous evidence accepted by the Environment Department, which had workshopped the plan with the company over 18 months and seven drafts before it was submitted” (see Morrison Cautions on Adani)

Unfortunately, the best that Scott Morrison could respond yesterday was to caution “the state government against “playing games” with jobs in north Queensland, which ­already suffered high unemployment before it was ravaged by floods this month. “I think the people of Queensland are dealing with enough at the moment without having decisions to take away their jobs,” the Prime Minister said.“We support the mining industry. We want to see mining jobs and we want to be able to see projects stand on their two feet and be given a go on the basis of their commercial realities.”

Given the changeable voting in Queensland for federal elections Morrison should be weighing in much more strongly. My attempt failed to have published a suggested response published. However, that suggested response may be worth repeating here, viz

It is not surprising that Queensland’s Labor government has established an inquiry into the dangers from an Adani coal mine to a finch. As you point out, that government is controlled by the left-wing and the Premier is just a front ( “Labor can no longer pretend it supports Adani”, 15/2). And, as shown by its behavior in forcing Shorten to edge open border controls without proper ministerial decisions, the left-wing constitutes a real threat to governing Australia federally if constituents are fooled into voting Labor in May.

The Morrison government needs to find ways of attracting the attention of voters to what they are in for if Labor wins. One possible way of getting their attention would be to adopt the same strategy as Clive Palmer has in full scale adverts on TV and published media. Of course, by presenting such rubbish in such a way Palmer is now losing the attention of voters.

A Coalition adverts strategy would be structured to identify the many problems in the policies already announced by Labor, such as border openings, increases in taxation and unbelievable reductions in emissions by 2030. It is not too early to start a Palmer-like strategy now.

There are other possibilities, including asking a credit rating agency to examine Queensland’s rating. Queensland’s LNP opposition has undertaken to restore the AAA rating which Labor lost and it could play that role with Federal support. It might even be possible for the Federal government to use its external affairs power to approve the mine by saying it is important for Australia’s foreign relations with India and its foreign investment policy that it go ahead.

It is in the interests of the Morrison government, both economic and political, to do as much as it can to have the Adani mine started.

On Tuesday I referred to Andrew Bolt’s suggestion on Sky News that the decision by Labor to push legislation through the lower House allowing asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island to “doctor” themselves to Australia for treatment without ministerial approval and, by obtaining court approval, to then “recuperate” here for a indefinite period. With the support of the Greens et al, this legislation has now passed the Senate too but, despite his strong attack on Shorten and accusation that he has broken what had seemed a bipartisan agreement on border control,  Morrison has said that he will not call an early election. Even so, Bolt tonight again repeated on Sky News his advocacy of an early election by taking advantage of the policy windfall provided by Labor.

Morrison’s attack on Shorten for showing “weakness” in handling Caucus is obviously correct (as the emergence of Deputy Albanese on TV suggests) and provides a useful stick for Morrison to use and argue that, if Labor were to win the election, they would again allow border controls to be breached. Morrison has already established that up to 300 refugees have obtained the approval of doctors to be transferred to Australia (see Possible Effects of Labor Legislation on Refugeesand Bolt Says Labor’s Legislation Allows Asylum Seekers to Come To Aus).  It seems likely that under Labor border controls would be eased and smugglers would again penetrate access in one way or another (see Sheridan Says Labor Shameful).

But as electorally beneficial as it would likely be, Morrison can’t rely only on using such a stick. Other policies need to be finalized and presented, including the budget.

It also remains to be seen how long he can run a minority government where there is an opposition which is able to force legislation right through Parliament and effectively change the Coalition’s policies on other matters too. There has already been a (failed) attempt today to establish a Royal Commission on some failure of access to disabilities and there will inevitably be a debate on aspects of the budget set to be presented in early April. That would provide Labor/Greens with opportunities to have amendments to the budget passed through Parliament not by the Coalition but by the Opposition.

Labor’s success in obtaining the passage of legislation on Manus/Nauran refugees has changed the management of government picture and makes it more realistic for the Coalition to think of an early election. This is not simply to take advantage of its win on border control strategy but to avoid the potential loss of control of Parliament and its own policies.

Energy Policy

I have already criticized the energy policy developed by Energy Minister Taylor particularly its retention of the targets for reducing emissions and his support for increased usage of renewable and the emergence of estimates of much higher costs for the latter than previously thought. I have also questioned the use of divestiture powers by a minister who would be doing so on the basis that he accepted advice that a company displayed “market disconduct” and was not allowing prices to fall.

Reports emerged this afternoon that, instead of voting on a bill to give effect to Taylor’s “model” (sic), Treasurer Frydenburg has announced that the divestiture power would become a component of election policies. He is reported as saying that

“Our legislation to prohibit energy market misconduct is an important reform that aims to hold the big energy companies to account and drive competition in the market and lower prices for consumers. We will be taking this policy to the election which forms our response to the ACCC inquiry into retail electricity prices. It was on the Labor Party’s watch when they were last in government that electricity prices doubled and now they are obstructing key reforms which save money for Australian families and businesses” (see Coalition Says Big Sticks Policy Now To Be Taken to The Election).

The report also makes it clear that had the government attempted to pass the bill now it would have faced major amendments from Labor. This seems to confirm that there is likely to be an early election – possibly immediately after the budget.

In today’s Herald Sun, Andrew Bolt points out that on Tuesday  Malcolm Turnbull “gave a ludicrously generous endorsement to Liberal turncoat Julia Banks, the MP now running as an independent against Liberal Health Minister Greg Hunt” and rightly describes this and other actions by Turnbull as “treachery” which however  many journalists have failed to so characterize (see Turnbull’s Party Betrayal Must Be Called Out).

Bolt argues that “Turnbull has now done all that’s needed for the Liberals to expel him as a saboteur. The constitution of the party’s NSW branch, to which Turnbull belongs, states: ‘State Executive may expel a member where the member has actively assisted a candidate other than a candidate endorsed or approved by the organisation for election to office.’”

• Bolt also argues that “Turnbull is involved in the spate of so-called ‘independents’ and ‘moderates’ now standing against his Liberal foes and all pushing his signature cause of global warming”;
• Turnbull shows “other clear signs of vengeance against the Liberals who failed to see how utterly brilliant, loved and successful he really was”;
• Turnbull “publicly attacked” Morrison’s proposal to move Australia’s Israel’s embassy to Jerusalem;
• He lobbied Liberals to refer Peter Dutton’s to the High Court to determine his eligibility as an MP;
• Followed a new “Vote Tony Out” Instagram campaign against Tony Abbott re-election in Warringah.

Bond concludes that Turnbull “just wants the Liberals to lose” and yet “Morrison is too scared to take on Turnbull publicly”.

Bolt is far from being the only commentator who is critical of Turnbull’s behavior from the viewpoint of the Liberal Party. An article in The Australian on 6 Feb, jointly authored by Greg Brown and National Affairs Editor Simon Benson, reports that “Liberal Party federal president Nick Greiner criticized Mr Turnbull for suggesting in an interview that Ms Banks was an ‘outstanding parliamentarian’. Mr Greiner, a former NSW premier who was the former prime minister’s pick for party president, said Mr Turnbull should “follow his own advice” about the behaviour of former prime ministers after they leave politics” (see Greiner Criticizes Turnbull).

One day in the near future Liberal President Greiner may be asked to support a motion to expel Turnbull.

Janet Albrechtsen is another liberal commentator who has been extremely critical of Turnbull’s behavior. In an important article in The Australian on 6 Feb she correctly claimed that “last week, Malcolm Turnbull was further marked down in ­senior government circles as the culprit who has one final act in Australian politics: to bring down the Morrison government and destro­y those who tossed him out for being a poor prime minister last year, using his totemic issue of ­demanding further action on ­climate change”( see Albrechtsen Exposes Turnbull).

Albrechtsen also points out that “Turnbull’s political history points to a man who burns people who thwart his ambition. Following the 2007 election, when Brendan Nelson beat Turnbull for the leadership, Turnbull wasted no time in tearing Nelson down”. Nelson’s chief of staff, Peter Hendy, ­told a Fairfax journalist that “Turnbull told me that my job was to get Brendan to resign in the next few weeks ­because Brendan was hopeless and he would damage the Liberal brand so much that by the time he, Turnbull, took over, the next ­election would no longer be winnabl­e. Turnbull said much the same to Nelson”.

Important in the present context, Albrechtsen claims that “when Turnbull lost the prime ministership to Scott Morrison last year, he did everything he could to destroy the Morrison ­government. Turnbull refused to help Liberal candidate Dave Sharma during the Wentworth by-election. Those close to Turnbull pleaded with him to write a letter supporting Sharma. He refused”. She also suggests that  the Turnbull may have a hand in the rise of a batch of fake independents, assisted by GetUp, running against his longstanding nemesis Tony Abbott, Greg Hunt too for voting against Turnbull in the leadership coup, and even the member for Mackellar, Jason ­Falinski. The so-called independents have this in ­common with Turnbull — a fixation on more action on climate change. She also recalls that in October 2009 Turnbull said  “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action of clim­ate change as I am.” And Abbott’s response: “OK then, don’t.”

As to Banks herself, the following picture accompanying Albrechtsen’s digitalized article itself tells its own story.

Malcolm Turnbull visits the then newly elected member for Chisholm Julia Banks in Oakleigh in 2016. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

Her false claim to have “unfinished business” on climate change ­action is reflected in what she told the ABC’s Rafael Epstein, viz  that ‘we should meet or exceed the Paris targets’. “That was news to Jane Hume, a Victorian Liberal MP who once supported Banks but said she had never heard Banks raise such matters on climate change in the party room. A new-found conviction then? Maybe one assisted by her good friend, the former PM, and his son”.

There is much more that could be said about Turnbull’s character and ruthlessness. John Stone has had a number of articles published pointing out that, for a variety of reasons, he was totally unsuited to be head of the Liberal party. Most of these were re-published in my Commentary now on my web.

The most important policy implication now is that the revelations cited above provide an opportunity for the Morrison government not to say publicly that Turnbull is no longer accepted as a Liberal but to say that some of the policies adopted by Turnbull have been reviewed and are being improved. Morrison should not be “scared” to take on Turnbull, as Bolt suggests he is. The Coalition should say that they now judge themselves more likely to be accepted by the electorate than present polling suggests by making an updating in some policy areas.

This requires a change in what is the most important “political” policy for the election, viz climate change.  In particular, the policy being developed by Energy Minister Taylor should include a departure from the Paris Accord by eliminating or at least reducing Australia’s targets for reducing carbon emissions and also reducing the renewable target. Morrison should also strongly reaffirm the other main policy, viz that on border controls and on immigration policy generally including a major reduction. This appears to be mainly (but not entirely) on track (see Morrison Will Vote Against Bill On Medical Treatment).

With the resumption of Parliament next week these changes in policy, and their explanations, should be settled before then.

The improvement in the Coalition’s Newspoll on 29 January (still down at 47/53 TPP) has almost been forgotten and questions continue as to whether Morrison is able to address the “two big things” (quit Paris accord and slash immigration) needed to give the Coalition a chance. The need for quitting the Paris accord has been enhanced by what has happened under heat waves in Victoria, South Australia and now NSW.

Since my 29/1 Commentary the possibility of the Coalition establishinga policy which would, as promised, allow lower electricity prices to happen and be sustained continues to be highly unlikely– except of course if government controls are able to be imposed legally and producers/retailers are compensated for a proportion of  the existing higher costs which would otherwise be met by consumers of electricity, but with taxpayers then having to pay the costs. As indicated in the this article (Forward Electricity Prices Increase), at present futures markets are operating on the basis that the increasing reliance on renewables under announced policies will mean that there will be periods when major shortages of supply occur given that states have policies which will rely on up to 50 per cent of power coming from renewable and prices will have to increase to choke off a proportion of demand (the discussion in the article is confused because the author and the AFR itself supports existing policy).

This is basically what happened during last week’s heat wave and little wind power and which led to a sudden major increase in costs. It is reported that Victorian and South Australian consumers of electricity had to pay additional costs of about $1bn for just two days last week, which indicates the frailty of existing policies operated by those two states (see Power Costs Increase by $1bn in Two Days) and which other states also operate. Indeed, NSW has today experienced blackouts which appear less than in  Melbourne but which include outages (and additional costs) in hospitals (see Blackouts in NSW Too).

Note that Federal Resources Minister Canavan  said that this occurrence “justifies investment in reliable sources of power, such as coal-fired power”. But he fails to recognise that the private sector will not make any such investments under the existing climate change policy which aims to reduce usage of coal. Note also that the climate “expert” employed by The Australian, Graham Lloyd, comments that  “Renewable energy might be the cheapest option to build but it makes sense only if there is power available when it is needed”(see Graham Lloyd on Renewable). But he doesn’t canvass a reduction in usage of renewable or a basic problem with policies.

The “solution” of course is to withdraw from the Paris accord which Turnbull signed on our behalf (sic) and, instead, adopt a climate change policy which preferably eliminates any target for using renewable or reducing carbon emissions but at least reduces such targets to a major extent. Properly handled, that would provide a major weapon with which to fight the election given that Labor has adopted an even larger bunch of targets to use renewable and to reduce carbon emissions.  But Morrison has first to indicate that his government is now not in agreement with CC policies adopted under Turnbull.

Today’s first Newspoll for 2019 shows a helpful improvement for the Coalition in its TPP gap from 45/55 in early December to 47/53 but Morrison’s “Satisfactory”  rate as PM went down from 42  to 40 and his “Dissatisfaction” rate went up from 45 to 47. By contrast, the “Satisfactory” and “Dissatisfaction” rates for  Shorten each improved by a point and left him only 3 rates behind Morrison. In the “Better PM” rate Morrison also dropped a point while Shorten’s rate was unchanged, albeit at 7 points behind Morrison. This Newspoll was taken during the period when three ministers announced they would not stand at the next election (see Newspoll TPP Loss Reduced to 53/47).

One might say that the improvement in the Coalition’s TPP is not cancelled out by the deterioration in satisfaction and better PM rates. But the improved TPP has also to be assessed by noting that it is still suggests a 3.4 per cent swing against the government since the July 2016 double dissolution election won by Turnbull by one vote. Remember also that the Turnbull government itself experienced a swing against it then of over 3 per cent ie the Coalition has a lot of ground to make up.

The NSW State election on 23 March (for all seats in the lower house) will provide the next electoral test for the Coalition, although there will also be more Newspolls before then.

In my Commentary on 27 January I argued that Morrison needed to get cracking on enunciating policies asap and drew particular attention to the problems arising from existing energy and climate change policies, including of course the large blackouts in Victoria.  Commentary concluded that  “the cost of producing more power, and reducing electricity prices, would also be reduced if the existing policy of reducing emissions from coal usage was either dropped or substantially reduced and the non-binding agreement in Paris was dropped or reduced”.  I also argued that increased usage of renewable is not the way to reduce electricity prices.

Note too that, according to Simon Benson at News, Morrison believes that the Coalition’s attack on Labor’s negative gearing and dividend imputation policies “represent a significant vulnerability in Labor’s economic argument”. But the (correct) attack on such policies is likely to have only a limited effect on polling.

So far there is no sign of any movement on the most important policies and Morrison’s announcement today of tax concessions for small businesses, apparently at a cost of $750mn , is only touching the edges of policy (see Morrison Announces Tax Concessions for Small Businesses). Equally, to meet his prediction that there will be an increase in jobs of 1.25 mn over the next five years (similar to Abbott’s successful prediction), appropriate policies and circumstance will need to be in place.

In today’s Herald Sun et al, Terry McCrann says “Sorry Scott and Josh, but there ain’t anything you can do to stop it. Labor is going to win the federal election. The two of you, and especially Scott, won’t do the two big things that are so critical to Australia’s future and, properly argued “axe-the-tax style”, could at least make a fight of it.  That’s to slash immigration and walk away from the Fake Paris Climate Accord” ( see McCrann: Labor will Shutdown Lights/Economy)

Morrison needs to address in a substantive way the “two big things” mentioned by McCrann.

My previous Commentary have argued that, as a Coalition leader facing an election, Scott Morrison needs to get cracking on enunciating policies asap in the New Year. But although active since early January, he seems to have focussed on matters which are mostly “organisational” and would have limited appeal to the electorate in general. Indeed, his poor handling of some of these matters might even have attracted negative comment or a sort of “well what was that all about”.

Now we have a situation in which three of his ministers have said they will not stand again but, in what seems bad strategy for the Coalition, will remain as ministers right up to the election and yet whatever they pronounce will have no application as future policy in itself. Morrison’s response is that such “refreshing” is normal but it gives the appearance of rats leaving a sinking ship (see Morrison Loses Three Ministers). Moreover, while the “pick” by Morrison of former President of the Labor party, Warren Mundine, for the seat of Gilmore should help retain that closely fought seat, Morrison seems to have mishandled the arrangements for the de-selection of a popular local candidate and he felt forced to publicly attack that candidate. This has apparently upset not only the candidate but other local Liberal members, some of whom resigned. It will not have helped the next Newspoll by the Coalition.

Today’s article in the Herald Sun by Peta Credlin points out that, while Mundine “delivered a devasting indictment of the party that had been his DNA for decades”, the “immediate attention of the media focussed on the cack-handed way the former Liberal candidate was replaced and the unhappiness of local branch members. Instead of Mundine’s move signifying just how much the coming election matters, its been treated as further evidence of Liberal chaos” (see Re: Credlin on Mundine Highlighting Added). With what is almost despair Credlin adds “As you know, I’ve been a critic of the current government for not being sufficiently different from Labor, whether that’s been rolling PMs or pandering to the green lobby by destroying Australia’s energy advantage. But for all the government’s mistakes, Mundine’s move highlights the gulf that still remains between the two big parties. Labor’s instinct is always for more spending, more regulating and more taxing, especially on anyone who works hard to get ahead”.

Importantly, neither Morrison nor his Energy Minister (Taylor) seem to have been able to indicate why they have not made any substantive change in energy policy and/or how they are going to effect the promised reduction in electricity prices. Alinta, one of the our large retailers, has indicated that no reductions are likely in the next 18 months. If correct that would follow the about doubling of wholesale prices in Victoria over the last six years  (which covered the closing of Haxelwood) and similar increases in other states.

Note that Alinta  was bought by a Chinese group in 2017 “from private equity for $4bn as part of a wave of foreign investments targeting growth opportunities in Australia’s power and utility sectors following a jump in gas and electricity prices over the past few years” ie it would seem that the Chinese saw that the increased prices offered high returns and no effective action was subsequently taken by the ACCC to try to ensure competition, rather the so-called regulatory solution. (see Power Prices To Rise further). The implication is that Atlinta feels that any policy changes by either the Victorian or Federal governments will be accompanied by price increases.

Indications remain (but without detail) that, to ensure (sic) reliability and to control prices, the Morrison government will likely announce a highly regulated energy policy, possibly in the budget.  Such a de facto nationalisation would naturally suit Labor, which has been attributing part of current problems to privatisations undertaken by former Premier Jeff Kennett. But instead of pointing out the gross inefficiency of the SECV when he came to office, the latter’s main contribution to existing political difficulties facing the Coalition seems to be to push some of the oldies in the Liberal Party to resign, including existing “conservatives” such as Kevin Anderson and Tony Abbott.  Yet Morrison shows no sign of even bringing them back as ministers, even though that should at least improve the image from the existing left of centre!

The concern which the extreme left feels about a return of Abbott to the Coalition ministry is indicated by the front page article published by today’s Age. It is headed   “An Olympian’s Task: to kick out Abbott” and written by two journos, Peter FitzSimons & Bevan Shields, whose writings would raise a question about The Age’s claim of being “always independent”.  According to these two, “World champion athlete-turned-barrister Zali Steggall has called time on Tony Abbott’s “destructive and divisive” 25-year career in federal politics, launching a major bid to seize the former prime minister’s blue-ribbon Sydney seat of Warringah…  the four-time Winter Olympian said Mr Abbott was an “aggressive” national figure who had lost touch with the affluent electorate and deserved to be thrown out of Parliament for his role in the demise of Malcolm Turnbull, and views on the environment… Tony Abbott, who has been a handbrake on Australian progress on many fronts but particularly effective action on climate change”. (Note that my first message conveying this article was rejected because “the content was rejected due to suspected spam”. When I sent the same message again the suspected spam had disappeared!).

The Coalition’s (Federal & Victorian) failure to enunciate a coherent energy policy was important in the abysmal handling of the policy during the heat wave and may well constitute another challenge or two in the period ahead if (as is forecast) further high temperatures occur. In considering the various policy “explanations” it is pertinent to assess what the main policy makers said that during the heat wave yesterday (see The Incredible Story of Vic Energy Policy under “Extreme” Eventsextracted from reports/comments in yesterday’s Australian):

• Federal energy minister Angus Taylor said the government was closely monitoring the energy situation in Victoria and thanks AEMO for the job it has done managing a difficult situation in collaboration with the wider energy industry. “The conditions experienced over the last two weeks across the national electricity market reinforce the need for investment in reliable 24/7 generation and the retailer reliability obligation.“That is why the government is backing in new reliable generation investment through its Underwriting New Generation Investments program which has had strong responses to its registration of interest process that closed on 23 January.“The government will carefully consider all proposals and will have more to say once we have considered all the submissions and feedback received during this process.”
•  Labor leader Bill Shorten said he was very concerned about the load shedding, suggesting the Morrison government was partly to blame.“Ever since the federal government said they could lower power prices and took responsibility for the power debate, it’s now partly on the federal government’s head this challenge of blackouts,” Mr Shorten said.“They’re the ones who said that renewables were a waste of time – well they’ve been in charge now for the best part of six years.
  “I do expect the federal government, having said they could lower prices, to do more for the reliability of the system rather than just blame the states but it is most serious and let’s just keep our fingers crossed.” Mr Shorten said the last six years of energy policy had been a disgrace.“While this government has been debating the scientists and the community about renewable energy there has been a virtual freeze on investment in power generation and now sadly when we need our power the chickens have come home to roost,” he said.  “While you have a government that can’t deliver a coherent national power policy, there will not be investment in new generation and where you don’t have investment in new generation, sooner or later the old generation will fall over and then we face these sorts of crises.“To me it highlights everything that’s wrong with the LNP and the Liberal government in Canberra in 2019 – they spend so much time arguing about the politics, and now we’ve wasted 2000 days and we’re no better off, indeed we’re worse off, than we were six years ago.”
• Victorian Energy Minister, Ms D’Ambrosio said voters had spoken loudly and clearly on the Coalition’s credibility on energy policy at the November election.“They had no energy policy. The only energy policy they took to the last state election was to build a new coal-fired power station which – even if you started building it today – would take eight years to come”.  “No-one is prepared to finance it, and we can see that the problems we’ve got now is that we’ve got a 20th Century system for a 21st Century climate, and the fact is our thermal generators are ageing, they are becoming less and less reliable.“That has been palpably evident in the last couple days.” “More energy supply is available to us in Victoria this summer than it was this time last year. That’s because of our strong emphasis on renewable energy: the quickest form of energy to be built, the cheapest and, of course, if we have a look at today, the most reliable.“Wind power came through today. Wind power produced sufficient power generation – as was anticipated.“Our batteries – our large batteries – were available last night when we needed them the most.”  AEMO data showed the batteries generating just 25 megawatts of a Victorian total of 8,622 megawatts at 7pm last night.
  Wind is currently generating 8.1 per cent of Victoria’s energy.
• Victorian opposition leader Michael O’Brien said the load shedding today in Victoria has shown the failure of the Andrews government’s energy policies.“Something is seriously wrong when the power goes out in Victoria because we don’t have enough supply,” the Liberal leader said.“On a day of extreme temperatures, there are serious health and safety concerns with deliberately cutting off supply.“When Labor policy led to the closure of Hazelwood Power Station, the Liberals and Nationals warned that Victoria was left exposed.“We are not a Third World country. We deserve a safe and reliable power grid.
  “Daniel Andrews loves to boast he’s good at ‘getting things done’. Keeping the power on would be a good start.”
• Victorian opposition acting energy spokesman David Southwick said it defied belief that in a first-world country like Australia, Victoria has a state government that can’t guarantee enough electricity for people to go about their daily lives.“Melbourne is currently hosting thousands of international tourists for the Australian Open who must be wondering why the state government is asking its citizens to refrain from using common household appliances to prevent large scale blackouts,” Mr Southwick said. “Most Victorians agree that renewable energy is the future but we need to make it a sensible transition that doesn’t threaten power supplies and cost Victorians a fortune.“Daniel Andrews owes all Victorians an explanation as to why he can’t keep the lights on.”

Conclusions

Readers of this Commentary will recognise the ineptness of these statements of policy makers, both Liberal and Labor. Of course, Australia can increase the usage of renewable but the limited wind yesterday showed that they produced only 8 per cent of power in Victoria. This low contribution occurs quite frequently (similar low contributions occur in other states). If the reliance on renewable is increased so too will there be a need for considerable additional investments in back-up power sources, such as gas and diesel. This futher addition to the cost of producing power requires either additional subsidies by taxpayers (already large) or further increases in prices (already doubled in the last six years). A reduction in the unnecessary government restrictions on investment in gas would also help as it has enormously in the US.

The cost of producing more power, and reducing electricity prices, would also be reduced if the existing policy of reducing emissions from coal usage was either dropped or substantially reduced and the non-binding agreement in Paris was dropped or reduced.

A belated Happy Australia day

In my Commentary for 17 January I noted that “there is no sign yet of a more comprehensive presentation of Coalition policies even though Turnbull has gone”.  Recent developments have now raised the question of what Morrison is actually seeking to achieve as leader of the Coalition. For example, his three day visit to Vanuatu and Fiji, accompanied by his wife, and the announcement of financial provisions for extensive infrastructure and other aid have made it appear an important initiative for Australia (see Australia/Fiji Relations).

Yet while this might help limit Chinese activity in the region, and help Fiji itself, it scarcely rates as an initiative which the Coalition leader should undertake at a time when other policies need to  be developed prior to an election in May. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who was Minister for International Development and the Pacific, and had made 35 trips to the Pacific islands, might well have implemented the enhanced Pacific policies announced by Morrison, albeit at a lower level (see Warning on Loans to Pacific Islands). But she was dropped as a minister.

Morrison himself seems to have been ill-prepared to handle the views of Fiji President, Bainimarama, on climate change and, in particular, the supposed threat of rises in sea levels.Yet all the Pacific Islands have long used the supposed threat from climate change as a basis for requiring more aid and Morrison should have recognised this. But he appears to have accepted sea levels as a real, almost immediate, threat (see Morrison on Climate Change).  

Climate expert Bill Kininmonth points out that “Bob Hawke got a similar serve from the then Fiji PM at a South Pacific Forum meeting back about 1988. As a consequence the Australian government funded the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project, a network of about a dozen automated sea level and meteorological observing stations. The project was managed by the National Tidal Facility at Flinders University. The NTF was incorporated by BoM in the early 2000s. I was on a project review team in the early 200s when it was still in Flinders. There seemed to be excellent technical management of the project”.

An examination of the monthly sea level data (Max, Min and Mean) share shows that, except in one year (1997-98), there is no upwards trend in sea levels according to BOM data.

Was Morrison unaware of this? Did he consult his environment Minister? Did he consult fellow Cabinet colleagues before the visit?

His apparent failure to check on sea levels in the Pacific and Fiji in particular is made more important by an interview conducted about a year ago by the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation with expert oceanographer Nils-Axel Morner. In fact, Morner’s analysis extends beyond the Pacific and he disparages the IPCC as having “always misrepresented the facts on this topic. It exaggerates the risks of a sea level rise enormously. The IPCC relies in particular on questionable computer models rather than field research”. Morner adds that using his research “We were able to prove that the sea level in Fiji from 1550 to about 1700 was about seventy centimeters higher than it is today. Then it sank and was about fifty centimeters lower in the 18th century than it is today. Then it rose to about the current level. In the last 200 years, the level has not changed significantly. For the past 50 to 70 years, it has been stable” (see Nils-Axel Morner Says Sea Levels No Problem).

The failure of almost all political leaders, and of many who write about the supposed threat from climate change, is also illustrated in the article by Bjorn Lomborg published in Weekend Australian. He points out that a major charity, Christian Aid, has released a report, Counting the Cost: A Year of Climate Breakdown, documenting the “huge costs of climate impacts” and saying that the cost of climate change last year was $US85 billion ($118bn).  Lomborg says that this claim was “repeated by many newspapers — just as it was designed to — yet it is nonsense”… “But the charity, which receives money from the British and US governments and the European Commission and raised more than £100 million in 2017-18, is scaremongering” (see Lomborg Identifies False Claims on CChange).

In short, activists who support the dangerous warming threat and the need for governments to implement policies to reduce emissions, are costing taxpayers unwarranted expenditure. But, while the meeting of political leaders at Davos this week will doubtless have considerable discussions on CC, they are unlikely to do much about that.

Resignation of Kelly O’Dwyer

Today’s announcement that Kelly O’Dwyer, the Liberal member for Higgins, will not stand again for election is another surprise the more so as it has been a blue ribbon seat.  The reported resignation indicates that she had given Morrison advance notice and that  “I would particularly like to thank the Prime Minister and Jenny for their personal support in what has been a very difficult decision. I have worked closely with Scott not just as PM but also as Treasurer,” Ms O’Dwyer said. “He is the right person to lead our nation and I will do all that I can, both locally and nationally, to ensure that this continues” (see Is O’Dwyer Quit a Loss to Libs?).

Her appointment was as Minister for Women and for Industrial Relations, but she has not appeared to have made any impression on the latter or its much needed reforms. Indeed, it was a bit  surprising that she was given a ministry which has to deal mainly with men, had no obvious experience with the issues, and yet is thought to be a major election issue.

At the press conference announcing the resignation, Morrison is reported as agreeing that “family is so important”, and that he supported Ms O’Dwyer’s choice to leave politics. He said that being able to choose shows “great strength” and said “no one in Parliament has worked harder” on issues that women face. “When asked about Ms O’Dwyer’s replacement, she said there was plenty of talent within the Liberal Party and she hoped it would be another woman. Mr Morrison did not want to speculate on who the candidate might be” but there is much media commentary to the effect that it will “have to be a woman”.

Morrison has missed an opportunity to say that he would select the most important person available  and there is in fact a need for a revised Ministry.

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).

Trump’s sudden announcement that the US intends to “immediately withdraw” troops from Syria (and much reduced troops for Afghanistan) has caused much confusion as to US defence policy and, following the resignation of Mattis as Defence Secretary, Trump has found it difficult to get a replacement. While consistent with his election manifesto, Trump appears to have recognised that he was being too hasty and it appears he has accepted the view of National Security adviser, John Bolton, that the withdrawal be extended over a longer period and that it should first involve the elimination of IS (which Trump initially claimed had been achieved). Even so, policy uncertainty remains.

This has been increased by an address made by US Secretary of State Pompeo in Cairo, who declared the US was committed to “expel every last Iranian boot” from Syria where, in alliance with Russia, Tehran, in its drive for regional hegemony, has been propping up the murderous Assad regime. Without mentioning Mr Obama by name, Mr Pompeo heaped scorn on the former president’s “misguided” thinking on the use of military force and reluctance to call out “radical Islam”. That was a reference to Mr Obama’s preference for the term “violent extremism” when referring to Islamist terrorism and his call for an “opening towards Muslims” that would “transcend stereotypes”.

“Remember: it was here, here in this very city, another American stood before you … he told you that radical terrorism does not stem from ideology. He told you 9/11 led my country to abandon its ideals in the Middle East,” Mr Pompeo said as he argued Mr Obama had misjudged the Arab Spring uprisings. The Obama administration’s Middle East policy, he said, was an example of “what not to do”, whether in striking the nuclear deal or abandoning long-time ally Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s ruler, allowing him to be brought down by an uprising orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood” (see Pompeo on US Middle East Policy).

It is difficult to see how Pompeo’s statements can be reconciled with Trump’s.

Who Will Break the Deadlock on Mexican Wall?

The refusal  by Democrat’s House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer to give Trump approval (in the House) for any finance for building the border wall with Mexico poses a challenge to Trump now facing a majority in the House. In return, Trump has refused to approve finance for a large number of federal government employees and has threatened to declare a national emergency which (it appears) would allow him to obtain indirectly finance for the wall.  But Trump says he is “not yet” taking such action.

Trump has defended his position not with a tweeter but by making his first formal address from the Oval Office (see Text of Trump’s Address on Border) and has announced that he will not now attend the Davos meeting in Switzerland which purports to give major international leaders an opportunity to expound their international policies.He is also reported as actively promoting his view particularly in the south of US.

The Democrats are using the opportunity to remind people not only of their new majority position in the House but also of the problems which Trump is experiencing on implementing some of the various policies he advocates and the problems created by the partial shut-down of the federal government. However, the Democrats are not reported as addressing the illegal immigrant problem which previous Presidents have acknowledged and, in respect of which, some have supported cross Mexican border measures, albeit not one stretching across the country as Trump promised in his election manifesto.

In an editorial yesterday The Australian points out that “in 2017 the number of undocumented migrants apprehended for crossing into the US was just over 300,000, the lowest number in 46 years. In a year, however, that figure has jumped to 400,000. A Morning Consult/Politico poll shows 42 per cent of Americans believe there is a “crisis” on the border, 12 per cent perceive it as “a problem” and only 12 per cent see nothing amiss; Democratic leaders would be wise not to ignore those numbers” (see Merits in Border Security).

In short, the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem, although he should have started to do that some time ago when he had control of both houses. He did of course attempt early in his Presidency to limit immigrants from seven mainly Muslim countries and there has been an ongoing debate in the US on the extent of controls on immigrants. The increasing immigrant policy problem faced by various countries, including the development of the UK’s English Channel problem (see Migrants Attempting to Cross English Channel), may now attract more support in the US for some tightening of controls.

As Greg Sheridan points out, “it is legitimate for Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi and other Democrats to argue that Trump is proposing a bigger wall than that which they previously supported, or that they have changed their minds. What is not legitimate is to claim that Trump’s proposed wall — refashioned rhetorically now into a barrier, and to be made of steel rather than concrete — is a unique crime against the very essence of humanity and decency.  And the wall or barrier or fence that Trump wants to build would certainly help control illegal immigration. So, as ever, there is a good deal of plain common sense in the Trump proposal and it is also what he promised on the election trail … In the next few days Trump will either escalate, by declaring a national emergency and using extraordinary powers — which would be ridiculous but might be effective politically — or capitulate, with some minimal face-saving compromise. In the meantime he has again succeeded in being the trapeze artist from whom no one can avert their eyes” (see Sheridan on Trump’s Wall Explanation).

The Morrison government has made no comment on this matter.  Without supporting Trump’s building of the wall, it would be appropriate in circumstances where there is a general public discussion on immigration policy for Australia to indicate support of the US’s attempts to establish an effective regulatory system to control migrants. That is, of course, a potential major election issue here.

US Trade With China

An article published in the Wall St Journal reports that talks on US/China trade have resumed and that this constitutes “a show of Beijing’s seriousness”. At this stage the representatives on each side are not the most senior but the preparedness of China to engage in talks follows an agreement reached between Trump and Xi in December that the US would suspend until March tariff increases on $US200 bn of Chinese imports and thereby give the Chinese time to address what the US regards as unfair trade and economic practices (China became a member of the World Trade Organisation in 2001).

China has an enormous trade surplus with the US, with in 2017 its exports to the US amounting to $506bn and its imports from the US only $130bn (see China’s Large Trade Surplus With US). This appears to confirm that Trump has correctly threatened trade action against China not for protectionist reasons per se but because China is not conforming with WTO rules. Even so, the various aspects discussed in the attached indicate the complexity attached to any unwinding of Chinese restrictions, which extend to investment in China. As a major source for Australian exports, it is important that a satisfactory outcome be achieved.

Energy Policy

In my Commentary of 1 Jan I drew attention to the Morrison government’s decision to carry-over emissions credits obtained under the Kyoto agreements and that this meant that Australia’s emissions reduction target of 26% by 2030, as agreed by Turnbull, will in practice be much less. I also noted that, as a result, the Coalition is an even  better position than it was to contrast the adverse economic effects with Labor’s much larger target of a 50% reduction by 2030.

However, there remains much that needs to be done to effect a reduction in electricity prices and the operation of the electricity market. In his analysis of the problems that still exist, climate expert Alan Moran pointed out on January 9 that the latest report by the Energy Regulator, “in line with other official analyses, hugely understated how the electricity market has been undermined by 15 years of government subsidies to the inherently low-quality supply that is wind/solar” (see The Australian Energy Regulator’s Wholesale electricity market performance report).Moran offers a disheartening conclusion as follows:

“Its analytical shortcomings aside, the report’s call for stable policy is a forlorn one.  With half a dozen major Commonwealth policy direction changes since 2001 (and many others at the state level) there is zero prospect of policy stability.  There never can be such stability when energy policy is inextricably tied to emission reduction policy and the targets for renewable energy vary from zero to 100 per cent”.

If the Morrison government can further moderate its energy policy, it would increase its electoral chances. But as John Roskam said last Friday in an article in the AFR “The Liberals are terrified to talk about industrial relations, they don’t have an energy policy and on questions of values such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion they can’t agree among themselves on a position”. A lot of policy changes are needed.