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.

Although as this is written more than 30% of votes still need to be counted, it now looks almost certain that Labor will be returned and may even have a majority of seats. As the ABC election expert Green says,even if Premier Palaszczuk  “falls a seat short, she doesn’t have to do any deals. She can leave it to the Parliament to vote her out, because it would be unlikely that all the crossbench would vote against them at once. “It is a fixed-term Parliament — the Government can’t just resign and walk out of office and leave someone else to form government — they can’t do that, so somebody will form government. “So it is very hard to see how anyone other than Annastacia Palaszczuk can form government in the new Parliament. “They have a certain 46, and they only need one more vote and at the moment we are giving them another two seats on a prediction.” (see Labor to Win in Qld Election). Note the failure of One Nation while the Katter party may get two seats.

While Turnbull “explained” that the election primarily involved State issues, the reality is that it is another negative for him and increases the possibility of a loss of confidence vote against his government. In a separate report  Nationals MP Christensen blamed Malcolm Turnbull for the Liberal National Party’s poor result in regional Queensland and the rise of One Nation. Christensen who has threatened to cross the floor to help establish an inquiry into the banks, said he was “sorry” the LNP had let down Queenslanders who deserted them. He put “a lot” of the blame on the leadership and policy direction of the Turnbull government. “To Queenslanders who voted One Nation, I’m sorry we in the LNP let you down,” Mr Christensen tweeted this morning. “We need to listen more, work harder, stand up more for conservative values and regional Queensland do better to win your trust and vote.“A lot of that rests with the Turnbull government, its leadership and policy direction.”

Energy Policy

In my Commentary last Friday I drew attention to various reports and analyses which suggested major deficiencies in the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) scheme and that no agreement had been reached with the States at the 24 November COAG meeting on its implementation. I have now obtained a copy of the following relevant documents and attach copies of them:

• The Energy Security Board Modelling Report of 20th November
• ESB Advice to Frydenberg
• The 24 Nov COAG Energy Council Communique

The Modelling Report of  NEG dated 20 November requires further examination. But it was presumably provided to the meeting of the COAG Energy Council on 24 November with the aim of obtaining the agreement of the States to use it as the basis of electricity policy. In mid-October Turnbull and Frydenberg said that more detailed modelling of the savings would be presented to that already scheduled COAG meeting.

Yet the Executive Summary of the Modelling Report says that “the COAG Energy Council is being asked to consider approving further work by the ESB on the design of the Guarantee. If there is agreement to this further work the ESB would anticipate undertaking a thorough and comprehensive consultation process with a wide range of industry, consumer and government stakeholders. This process would allow all interested parties to engage in the detailed design of all elements of the policy.  It is anticipated that the ESB would be able to provide a preliminary design approach to Ministers for consideration at the COAG Energy Council meeting scheduled for April 2018 and then a final design recommendation including required legislative and rule changes for approval in July. It is envisaged that this work would be in conjunction with the work being done by the ESB and the COAG Energy Council to implement the recommendations from the Finkel Review”.

Along with the other two documents, this confirms that there is a long way to go before there will be any agreement on NEG as the basis of energy policy. This of course relates to a policy based on that developed by the Chief Scientist, whose basic approach is mistakenly governed by the dangerous warming thesis.

This is another example of the problem faced by Turnbull in developing and presenting coherent policies.

As soon as Turnbull arrived back in Australia from his visit to Israel for the BeerSheba, he held a press conference in Perth at which he rejected the idea of having an audit to determine whether MPs have complied with the constitutional requirement of having no foreign ancestry or, if so, of having renounced it before becoming federal MPs. He particularly attacked reports that Frydenberg might be deemed to be of Hungarian ancestry because his mother was born in Hungary but escaped the killing of Jews there and migrated to Australia. Frydenberg  is reported as telling the ABC that “I did seek some advice and I am very confident with that ­advice but also contacted the embassy here and I was very comforted by conversations with them”.

But no document has been displayed by Frydenberg and it is not clear whether his statement would be treated as a renouncement by the High Court, which is the arbiter. Former Liberal MP Alex Som­lyay, who was born in Hungary and travelled to Australia as a “stateless” person in 1949, is reported as indicating that, in addition to discussions with the Hungarian ambassador,  “I wrote him (the ambassador) a letter and that was my renunciation of any rights I may have had to Hungary.” (see Turnbull Refuses Audit).

Nor is it entirely clear that Turnbull himself has properly renounced the foreign ancestry he derived from his mother, Angela Lansbury, who was born in London. Shorten, who has displayed his written renouncement in Parliament, is presumably satisfied that Turnbull has done so properly because he is not asking for a renouncement from him. Even so, I have not been able to find any reference to a renouncement on Turnbull’s website and, while his Wikipedia has a section on Ancestry, it is empty. One would have thought that his legal expertise would have led Turnbull to ensure that any biography would refer to a renouncement and emphasise his Australianess .

Meanwhile, while Turnbull suggests that the issue is one for each individual MP to handle, Shorten’s suggestion that all MPs should be asked to prove their bona fides seems a more sensible approach in circumstances where Turnbull seems reluctant to play a leadership role and Parliament is being regarded as a circus (see Shorten on Citizenship).Today’s Sunday Press indicates that other MPs may not have properly renounced their ancestry and Peta Credlin points out that, since the loss of the two Green senators in July, it appears that Turnbull’s strategy team have not instigated any check of the Coalition MPs (see Turnbull Dismisses Citizenship Scrutiny).

A bipartisan request to MPs to display their ancestry would help clarify the position both generally and in regard to Turnbull himself, although determining the exact requirements could still leave some vulnerable to a High Court decision. Note that S 44 (i) makes ineligible an MP who  “Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power”. There may be quite a few who have only been given “rights or privileges” by a foreign power but who could be ineligible on that ground alone.

Correction To Today’s Commentary
Turnbull’s mother was not Angela Lansbury but her cousin Coral Lansbury, who was born in Melbourne. So his ancesters are acceptable for his eligibility as an MP. I misread Wikipedia. Thanks to Gary Banks for pointing this out.
Turnbull might still be the recipient of  “rights and privileges” given by a foreign power, though.

Turnbull’s Popularity

Although no new polling of the position of the Coalition and Turnbull has occurred since the 46/54 TPP a couple of weeks ago, the intervening period has (as Credlin’s article points out) continued to expose leadership problems. The following draws attention to the most important

• Kevin Andrews, who challenged Turnbull for the Liberal Party leadership in 2009 in a move that paved the way for Mr Abbott to become party leader and who was dropped from the ministry by Turnbull, is reported as  declaring on 2 November that  “Australia needs to return to “strong” and “decisive” leadership as he refused to endorse Malcolm Turnbull as party leader” (see Kevin Andrews on Turnbull).
• Leading commentator for The Australian, Simon Benson, wrote on 3 November that “It has not gone unnoticed among colleagues that several of Turnbull’s original sponsors inside the party room — notably James McGrath and Scott Ryan — have begun to crab-walk away from Turnbull. And the alleged factional antics of self-anointed leader of the moderates, Christopher Pyne, only feed into a perception that the moderates cannot be trusted” (see Turnbull Under Threat From Supporters).
• Regular columnist for The Australia, Graham Richardson, wrote on 3 Nov that “Labor is getting off scot-free because of the utter failure of Turnbull’s leadership. Turnbull is becoming more and more isolated and I think I know why. Our PM has one thing in common with Gough Whitlam. He only ever wants to talk to people who are as intelligent as he is. But he never meets anyone in that category, so he talks to no one” (see Richo on MT).
• Turnbull has announced that in the important Queensland election “It is now clear that only the LNP is committed to building the vital water infrastructure Queensland needs. We look forward to working with a future LNP government to deliver these water commitments”. However, it appears that the leader of the LNP has not invited Turnbull to participate in the election (see Qld Election- Turnbull Involved But Not Invited?).
• Hanson has announced that, in the Qld election, she will “unveil a plan to shift $1.4 billion worth of returns from state government-owned corporations into electricity price subsidies for households, countering a Labor offer to cut $50 from Queenslanders’ power bills”. Importantly, she said” the cost of electricity was the key concern of voters and neither of the major parties was doing enough to help. It’s the main thing affecting the whole state. I have travelled all over Queensland and people are suffering across the state, businesses are closing down and it’s hurting ordinary families. “If we can get the prices down, it will lift business and investment, and more jobs will come”. While this is related specifically to the Qld election, it is also relevant to Turnbull’s announcement that NEG will bring prices down but that modelling of this has not yet been completed. The indication that it may be revealed at the COAG meeting on 24 November will be too late to influence voters on the 25 November election.

The next session of Parliament starts in the last week of November and is scheduled to finish in the first week of December. Turnbull will be looking for presents that may be difficult for Father Christmas to find.

“There will be discussion about the clean energy target, but … we received the report just five weeks ago,” Mr Frydenberg said. “We need to get this right. Dr Finkel made it very clear that the clean energy target, if it would be implemented would be from 2020, so there is no rush. What is important is to get the policy right” (see Frydenberg on CET).

This comment is a matter of concern.

First, the Commonwealth already has a target for reducing CO2 emissions by 26-28% by 2030 and for usage of 23% in renewable by 2020. Finkel proposes reduced emissions of 50% by 2050 and increased renewable usage of 42% by 2030. The implication of this remark by Frydenberg is that higher targets will be adopted by the Turnbull government no later than 2020 by which time the Commonwealth will have reached a decision on Finkel – or, more likely, Labor and its already similarly high proposed targets will be in office.

Second, it leaves a further period of uncertainty on electricity  prices for (in particular) businesses but also for households. Frydenberg’s pre-meeting comments also included that “the best way to drive down electricity prices is to get reform to the market, and that is what the meeting today will focus on, and I am confident that we can make substantial progress on the Finkel recommendations”. But there will NOT be any effective market under a system which is subject to extensive government regulations and which are likely to have a significant upward effect on prices (NOT downward) compared with coal usage unless government subsidies are increased. Judging by the recommendations by Finkel (which on my count are 55), the regulatory apparatus will be large (see Finkel Blueprint Recommendations) and imply that many future decisions by operators will have to be approved by one or more of the busy regulators.

Frydeneberg’s very short press release after the meeting with State Ministers (see Press Release on COAG Energy Council Meeting) claims agreement on “a significant set of reforms which will deliver a more affordable and reliable electricity system as we transition to a lower emissions future.” He claims that under the new arrangements  consumers will have “greater real time control over their energy consumption” – but in a higly regulated “system”?

Of course, most people know the real reason why the Turnbull government isn’t yet able to  announce a CET, viz that there is a significant section of the Parliamentary Coalition party which is sceptical of global warming and doesn’t accept the targets (see Craig Kelly on Renewables). Tony Abbott has proposed a renewable target no higher than the existing level of about 15% and some other MPS would support such an approach. There is also a significant number of journalists and others with expert analytical capacity who believe there is no need for government intervention to reduce CO2 emissions.

My previous Commentary drew particular attention to Andrew Bolt’s view and his reference to Finkel’s statement that there would be virtually no effect on global temperature even if Australia stopped emissions altogether. Yesterday Terry McCrann wrote in Weekend Australian “The single most stunning, most depressing inanity is energy: the conflict between the commitment to cutting emissions — bluntly, closing coal-fired power stations — and growing population relentlessly. So that the already onerous (and utterly pointless) 26-28 aggregate cuts in emissions by 2030 is actually a commitment to cut emissions by over 40 per cent in per capita terms — and in just a dozen years”.

Amongst the many Australian climate experts who are sceptics to one extent or another are Bill Kininmonth, Garth Paltridge, Tom Quirk and Michael Asten. Add warmist Mathew England who, while not a sceptic, acknowledged in a recent peer reviewed paper co-authored with two renowned warmists that the failure of temperatures to increase to any significant extent in the past nearly 20 years is a “problem” facing believers in global warming. There is also a significant group of former meteorologists which claims that the published temperature measurements are inaccurate and that there has been little or no actual increase over the past 100 years or so. Yesterday we also had a “wake-up” advertisement in News Ltd papers by a Climate Study group suggesting that another Ice Age is more likely than a Burning Temperature one and calling for the continued usage of coal. The coming week will see the publication by the IPA of a book outlining “the facts” on climate change, with sceptical analyses by a number of experts.

All these –and more – indicate that the Turnbull government is helping sign its own death warrant if it makes emissions reductions  a major policy. That is not the only reason for its poor polling. But with other Labor-like policies adopted by Turnbull it  serves to move otherwise supportive voters not to Labor but to the two groups who are now flourishing.

But what is Turnbull’s reaction after returning from his overseas visit and from telling the Cabinet of PM May in the UK about how to govern?

Yesterday he addressed the Liberal National Party state convention in Brisbane and “hit out at the state Labor government’s “reckless” plans to ensure Queensland’s energy supply was carbon neutral by 2050” (see Turnbull Tells Qld Convention of Coal’s Importance). He also  mounted a defence of coal-powered electricity, saying “Those people who say coal and other fossil fuels have no future are delusional and they fly in the face of all of the economic forecasts,” he told the crowd of party faithful.His sentiments were greeted with applause by the crowd, who a day earlier had passed a resolution urging a future state LNP government to promote and support the coal industry.The convention is also considering a resolution to call on the Turnbull government to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, which is likely to be debated today. Mr Turnbull devoted a significant portion of his 20-minute address to energy policy, warning of the impact of renewables on power prices and the security of the electricity grid.

Just how Turnbull government’s energy policy is going to ensure a role for coal in an environment where  provision would be made for  reducing emissions to a much lower rate is a mystery yet to be explained by  Turnbull. There are many options but the major question is whether he can provide a sufficient assurance to the many sceptics that coal would have a major role. Present indications are that this is unlikely.

Turnbull’s address to the National Press Club was supposed to set out his policy agenda for 2017. Perhaps the first thing to note is that his text made no mention at all of the election of Trump as the new President of the US and the possible need for Australia to change some of its policies as the result of the major changes being implemented by Trump. This was surprising if only because of the importance of the US as a world power and our alliance with this country.  But also because Trump appears to be reversing many of the major policies pursued by Obama, some of which have implications for Australia’s.

Perhaps that was because there appeared to be some uncertainty as to whether Trump would hold to the assurance he had given in his conservation with Turnbull that the US would accept the asylum seekers now on Nauru and Manus Island. Yet when, after his address, Turnbull was interviewed on 7.30 on the same day he told the interviewer ( a new man of Aboriginal descent who seems better than Leigh Sales) he had received confirmation earlier that day. He also told the interviewer that their resettlement would first be subject to a rigorous vetting by the US which, he claimed, is also true of Australia’s treatment of refugees. That this was not included in the text of his address seems passing strange as it could well mean that some of those on Nauru/Manus Island will not be accepted by the US.

Less passing strange is that the Washington Post has reported that Trump claimed the refugee resettlement deal formerly struck with Obama was “the worst deal ever”, before abruptly ending the 25-minute phone call. Trump reportedly accused Turnbull of seeking to export the “next Boston bombers” to the US, and complained that the deal was going to kill him politically. He reportedly said “I don’t want these people” while discussing the resettlement deal. This suggests that the vetting will likely to be rigorous!

Presumably reflecting also the wider controversy over Trump’s immigration policy, Turnbull did not say that Trump is adopting the same policy as Australia in “restoring integrity” to borders. Protesters in America and other countries (including Australia) have objected to the apparent temporary banning of entry from seven Middle East countries (and indefinite banning re Syria) and the resultant inclusion of some who hold US passports/visas or green cards. But such conclusions seem largely incorrect, possibly because the announcement was unclear. As pointed out by Times journalist Melanie Phillips “ Access to the US by the vast majority of the world’s Muslims will remain unchanged. The order doesn’t target people for their religion or nationality. It is aimed solely at countering the terrorist threat to America. The temporary seven-states ban allows for more rigorous vetting of individuals from those countries who are seeking entry to the US. The threat from these states is acute. Last November a radicalised Ohio State University student, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, ploughed a car into a campus crowd and stabbed people with a butcher’s knife. He was a Somali refugee who came to the US in 2014”. Phillips also refers to examples of immigration restrictions/bans under previous US governments, including Obama.

One of Trump’s Executive Orders also involves a tightening of controls on the US’s southern borders with Mexico, where Trump says he intends to strengthen the wall which covers part of the border. It is possible that Australia may at some future time tighten controls over additions to PNG residents seeking to cross the Torres Strait.

Some Other Aspects of Turnbull’s Address

It is hard to escape from Trump’s implementation of what Turnbull promised –“exciting times” – but has failed to deliver. Indeed “Essential” polling suggests that the Coalition is on a TPP debit of 46/54, with a primary vote of only 35 and the One Nation vote on 10 (see Bolt on Turnbull & Shorten). The last Newspoll had a debit of 48/52 in December. By comparison, and despite the protests which receive so much media coverage, a Rasmussen poll in the US shows that 56/34 support Trump’s policies (see Bolt on Trump). In short, Turnbull is losing ground in circumstances where “conservative” policies in the US are being supported.

Of course, it is early days and the “excitement” in the US is unlikely to last as the difficulties of implementing Trump’s policies become more apparent. But with such polling, Republican majorities in both houses are likely to run with the wolves. For Australia, Bolt and Sloan refer to the limited nature of the policies given play in Turnbull’s address. There is very little there that will attract attention from the electorate or the media.

Thus Bolt talks of Turnbull “spruiking child care and business tax cuts. He too talked of a crackdown on politicians’ expenses, but that was it … he staked out what will indeed be a big battleground until the election: electricity prices. Turnbull attacked Labor’s insane promise to triple the renewable electricity it will force Australians to use by 2030 — a promise of a 50 per cent renewable energy target costing an estimated $50 million. But the two big parties are satisfied if they just beat the other”. Sloan argues that Turnbull’s address was “ predictable, unenlightening guff. It was also gutless. Soaring rhetoric about opportunity and hand-ups doesn’t really cut it when the policy cupboard is so bare… We learnt very little in terms of any new policies from a leader who comes across as a classic insider while weirdly denying that he is a political hack. That the world may have moved on doesn’t seem to have dawned on him” (see Sloan on Turnbull).

If the Coalition allows Turnbull to continue as leader it now seems very likely that it will lose the next election and that, assuming she can attract suitable candidates, Pauline Hanson will win more seats in the Senate as well as in the Queensland elections, which could be held this year. Whether the LNP can become government in Queensland (it is currently on a TPP debit of 49/51) may depend on whether it forms a coalition of some form with One Nation, which has named 36 candidates for the next election there. Its effect at the Federal level may depend on how well it fares in Queensland but it does not seem to be a party that could help persuade the electorate to adopt the type of policies that are missing from the present Coalition ie the latter needs to dramatically lift its policies by changing leaders asap.

The Coalition’s “missing” policies include workplace relations (not mentioned in T’s address); defence policy (no indication by T of support for Trump’s executive order to destroy ISIS and no acknowledgement of the growing threat from extremist Islamic groups); climate change policy (no indication by T of any review of the dangerous warming thesis, of any possible reduction in Australia’s renewable or emissions targets and implied acceptance of the Chief Scientist’s extremely faulty preliminary report on the electricity sector); budget policy (T said savings on family tax benefit reductions would be spent on increased child care and gave no indication of a program of reducing middle class welfare).

During the first of the two weeks break from Parliament (Yes, it must have had the fewest meeting days for some years!), Turnbull spent some time in Queensland, possibly reflecting the number of marginal seats there and with One Nation seen as posing an increasing threat (although it’s polling percentage for Australia dropped slightly in the latest Newspoll). Of course, PMs are on the job all the time and when there is some spare time they can buy votes.

At a “summit” held on Friday in Brisbane and attended by state leaders and “experts”, Turnbull promised more funding (about $100mn) for dealing with domestic violence, which he described as a crime but “neglected by governments”, and he claimed that sexism and disrespectful attitudes towards women “are a big contributor to the problem” (see this report on Domestic Violence).  By contrast, The Weekend Australian has published an article by Bettina Arndt who refers to a documentary “The Red Pill” exposing “a whole range of issues… unfairly stacked against men and boys” but which feminists have “persuaded” Palace Cinemas not to show (see Men’s Rights). One wonders whether domestic violence is an issue requiring more extensive government intervention and, even if it does, whether the federal government should be involved.

Turnbull didn’t stop at domestic violence. He attended a BBQ at the Waltzing Matilda Centre at Winton, for which he is promising $8mn for rebuilding. He also promised $440mn for more dams and water projects across northern Australia, which will help keep Barnaby Joyce on side (see Dams in Qld). However, although political leaders promising more for dams usually signals an election, no sign of any such thinking emerged.  Even so, Turnbull has softened further on expenditure by indicating a “softer” approach on reforms of parental leave, which currently allows (for a period) women with young children to receive a minimum wage as well as paid leave at the same time.

On another shift in policy, Turnbull indicated that, while previously not a priority for him, he may now push for an amendment to Section 18C. This follows the  threat to prosecute cartoonist Bill Leak for showing an Aboriginal father not recognising his son. What may have persuaded Turnbull to change his mind is that Leak painted his portrait and is “a very engaging guy”.

Turnbull’s Balancing Act Increases on Environmental Policies

Turnbull has also stirred a bit on doing something about the emergence of anti-coal environmentalists who are financed from overseas by funds connected to the US Democratic presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta (see attached PM Faces anti-coal cabal). Podesta has refused to confirm the authenticity of the thousands of hacked Clinton emails some of which apparently refer to Podesta’s involvement in funding anti-coal activists. These hacked emails have now become very topical following the FBI’s discovery of a further batch of such emails.

However,Turnbull has talked about reviving Coalition proposals to restrict the interference of the foreign-funded groups stalling major developments — from highways and dams to mining projects — and to limit charity status, which the advocacy groups use to get taxpayer-funded exemptions and to hide donors. Attempts continue by environmental activists to stop Indian investors proceeding with the Adani coal mine (which is supported by the Labor Premier).  A report by the IPA draws attention to the costly and frivolous challenges under S487 of the Environment  Act which can be made by anyone with “a special interest in the environment” and Turnbull should be pushing for an amendment to this as a major policy issue.

Turnbull  now faces a balancing act here because his personal view of supporting action against global warming clashes with the political and economic need to put a stop to  a concerted global campaign to finish off one of Australia’s most important industries. Relevant also is the fact that he has stated publicly that the coal industry will be “here for years and years”. Turnbull’s  “best friend” in the US (Barack Obama) is unlikely to be much help and he now faces a problem in Australia because of the mistaken response made by Chief Scientist Finkel to questions asked at a Senate Committee meeting by Senator Malcolm Roberts about the effects of human activity on carbon dioxide and any consequent effects on temperatures (see Exchanges Between Finkel & Roberts).

It is of some interest that Finkel offered no qualifications to his expertise on the science of climate change before responding to the questioning, this despite the absence of such expertise in his CV.  It is also of interest that, in telling the Committee what his office is doing, he did not mention that he is conducting an inquiry into the SA blackout and the use of renewables as a source of energy.

But the most important development since the exchanges in the Senate committee is that climate expert William Kininmonth has sent a 13 page analysis to Finkel which argues that he (Finkel) has made a “false representation” in asserting that “carbon dioxide traps heat emitted from the Earth as long wave radiation”. According to Kininmonth,  the thesis that a trapping of long wave radiation adds to global warming “not only misrepresents the physics but, by induction, leads to erroneous conclusions”. The bottom line is that Kininmonth  is saying that it is wrong to accept the thesis that we face a dangerous increase in temperatures unless governments act to reduce the use of fossil fuels as energy sources.

Kininmonth concludes his analysis with the section below, which graphs increases in carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature changes as measured by satellites since 1980. Despite the large increase in carbon concentration (over 17%), the increase in temperature is only 0.3%, which is much less than the 1.1% increase predicted by IPCC modelling. Note in particular that, except for brief El Nino effects, there has been no increase in temperatures since around 2000 despite the continued increase in CO2 concentrations (the end of this so-called “pause” is eagerly awaited by the alarmists).  Most recipients of this Commentary will be aware  of Kininmonth’s 12 years experience as Superintendent of the Bureau of Meteorology Climate Centre and his attendance as Australian delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology during this period  (see attached Kininmonth on Senate Misled on Climate Science).

The imminent move for Australia to ratify the Paris Agreement in Parliament (there are only 3 weeks of sittings left this calendar year) will likely engender debate and Senator Roberts will doubtless try to use the opportunity not only to draw attention to Finkel’s erroneous analysis and Kininmonth’s warning not to accept the dangerous warming thesis but to the fact that there are many other expert climate scientists here and overseas who reject that thesis. The move to ratify provides an opportunity for Turnbull to acknowledge that there are some uncertainties in the analysis of the causes of climate change and the effects on temperatures. He could use the same language as he has in warning Premiers not to rush into adopting big targets for renewables

Yesterday’s The Australian detailed the bias we all know already exists at the ABC: in this instance our reference point is a TV presentation by ABC Four Corners, apparently approved by editorial director Sunderland (and with no reference to the almost invisible “new” CEO Guthrie). This presentation obviously grossly distorted the behaviour of the Nauruan community and the standard of government facilities in Nauru and, hence, its unsuitability to accommodate “refugees” trying to come to Australia. The ABC (and its sister SBS) are well known supporters of the refugee cause.

Today’s The Age, which adopts a similar view, reports that the ABC’s director of news  has “hit back” by claiming that it told the “important story” of more than 100 children living on Nauru by “relying on remote interviews and the testimonies of staff” because, it claimed, Nauru routinely refuses access to journalists and charges prohibitive fees for media visas. Sunderland is reported as saying “we don’t launch inquiries into excellent pieces of journalism”! Such comments are of course typical of the ABC’s handling of issues on which it holds fixed views, such as global warming. A letter published in today’s The Australian argues for cuts to funding for the ABC.

ABC News has also been publicising views that the use of wind power was not the cause of the SA black out. Yesterday’s 41 page update on the blackout by the experts running the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) does include a statement that “the most well known characteristic of wind power, variation of output with wind strength (often termed ‘intermittency’), was not a material factor in the events of 28 September”. But AEMO also acknowledges that the system was supposed to accommodate wind speeds of up to 120 km/hour, which does not appear to have been exceeded. Indeed, according to Graham Lloyd in today’s The Australian,  the Bureau of Meteorology told a Senate committee earlier this week that the storm was a “pretty standard southern low-pressure system” and he also drew attention to AEMO’s report that damage to transmission towers occurred after the blackout. While references are also being made to the settings of wind farms which automatically turn them off or reduce their energy contribution when the wind is excessive, and there are reports of adjustments now being made to those settings, this suggests at a minimum that the system was not properly tested beforehand. It also suggests that security of electricity is uncertain when the wind is high unless there are sizeable back-ups from coal and/or gas fired generators.

The reality seems to be that, while even the “experts” don’t know why the blackout occurred, there is a problem with the usage of renewables. It is significant that the AEMO update repeats its earlier statement that “A detailed report including reliable recommendations for action can be expected to take up to six months considering the complexities of the matters involved”. If there were no inherent problem, AEMO would surely have said so. Bear in mind too that public comments by any observer need to be read in light of their possible views about global warming and possible legal claims being made against those directly involved in advising and operating the SA system, including the government itself. However, as to the latter, the Premier and one of his ministers are overseas escorting a large number of business representatives to meetings in Paris and London designed to attract investment and trade.

Meantime, The Australian has also editorialised (before the release of the AEMO Update)  on some of the implications of the target set for renewables by the statement made by Queensland’s Energy Minister Bailey (see Editorial on Qld Renewables) on its target of 50 per cent for renewables by 2030. This has been followed by the warning from Stanwell Corporation, which is government owned and which provides 40 per cent of the state’s coal fired generation, that a cost-benefit analysis needs to be made about the adoption of such a target, all the more so as Bailey said there would be no shut downs of coal/gas fired generators. The claim by Bailey that security of electricity supply will be maintained suggests he has learned nothing from the blackout in South Australia, where even the energy minister there warned some time ago that the state’s use of 40 per cent of renewables exposes the state to a recurrence of blackouts. Analyses by other experts caution against any extensive use of intermittent energy sources where a group of generators is operated at synchronous speed. A limit of 25 percent may be optimal.

Paris Agreement

Last week-end my attention was drawn to an Inquiry being held on the Paris Agreement by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties at Parliament House. I decided to make a submission to the Inquiry by forwarding to the Committee the  presentation I made to a meeting of the Australian Institute of International Affairs on 14 April 2016 on Dangerous Global Warming –Fact or Fiction? The Limits of the Paris Accord. I noted that the presentation I made had been well received and that it was relevant because it questions the usefulness of the Paris Agreement and, as such, is directly relevant to the Inquiry. I drew attention to the following points:

1. It includes an analysis by physicist Dr Tom Quirk of the pledges made by the various participants in the agreement. These alone suggest that CO2 emissions are likely to increase by over 20 per cent by 2030 and that the pledges do not take account of emissions from forest and peat fires, which have been producing emissions as much as half of all fossil fuels burned;
2. It indicates that all pledges are voluntary and that there is no supervision of the accuracy of progress reports on emission reductions. A change of government could result in a modification or even a recant on a pledge. This suggests that Australia should not be a leader in reducing emissions;
3. It concludes that, for a variety of reasons given in the text, there are fundamental faults in the statistical and scientific analyses used to justify the need for early and comprehensive mitigatory action by governments. It also indicates that, contrary to some claims, there is no scientific consensus that temperatures will rise to dangerous levels unless mitigatory action is taken by governments. Many scientists both here and overseas themselves reject this view ;
4. Accordingly, the agreement should not be ratified as a treaty by Australia and the best policy for governments and individuals is to adapt to changes in climate and welcome the additions to CO2 which have been beneficial to humans over the past century.

I  added that since my presentation to the AIIA in April there has developed a recognition that it may not be desirable to continue with the policies now utilised by various countries and involving the substitution of the use of renewables  of wind and solar for the use of fossil fuels to provide energy. If this becomes confirmed, it may require reductions in the targets set by governments to reduce emissions of CO2.

Latest Temperatures

Following the publication of temperature figures for September, climate analyst Dr Ken Stewart has updated the graphs he compiles from satellite measurements since 1979, from which he calculates the trend for 100 years ie what would happen over the 100 years after June 1995 if the same temperatures were repeated since that date. The trend figures vary from country to country and as between the different areas of the world. For Australia the trend calculation of the figures since June 1995 show no increase. This despite a substantial increase in CO2 emissions.

Such an interpretation would fit with the neophile concept to which I referred in my last Commentary. Sure, follow the usual path and announce an increase in hospital grants to the states (The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates an increase of $7.9 billion over the period to 2019-20 compared with what was envisaged by the Abbott government). But announce also a new approach to Federal-State relations.

Never mind either that the no-substantive-detail-new-policy is claimed to involve one of the greatest reforms to Federation in ‘generations’ and the greatest health reform since the introduction of Medicare (the Queensland Premier say the policy is a blank page). The discussion of the general issue will, Turnbull hopes, occupy much time and attention in the lead-up to the election and he will be praised for raising it.

Never mind that the announcement was made at a press conference at a football ground and no written document was released.

Never mind that Treasurer Scott Morrison was not aware that Turnbull contradicted himself by first saying that the arrangement would  not involve an increase in the overall burden of taxation and then saying that “in the long term” States should be free to raise or lower income tax rates. The long term is a long way off but it shows vision.

Andrew Bolt argues in Bolt on Turnbull’s Tax Plan that “none of this makes sense as a political  strategy just months out from an election” and that Turnbull’s statement is open to different interpretations which Labor will surely use to the utmost.

None of this to say that the vertical fiscal imbalance is not too large (with the States relying on large grants to  finance their services and the Federal Government unduly intervening in the operation by the States of their services). But it is one thing to identify a problem and a much more complex and politically difficult thing to reduce it.

The States have instituted policy changes, such as privatisations and contracting out, which have improved standards of services and which reduce them from unwarranted political influence. Today’s Australian refers to the increase in efficiency of Queensland health services implemented under the Newman government (see Improvement in Ql’d Health Services) but another report indicates that 14 per cent of public hospitals are used by people who carry insurance. That should be drastically reduced and would save considerable sums.  I was personally involved in assisting the Kennett government in Victoria to improve the standard of services in that State.

The difficulty is in finding political leaders in the States who are prepared to initiate reforms which inevitably involve reductions in spending. Finding such leaders and providing them with politically usable analysis is more likely to improve standards of services than a reduction in the vertical fiscal imbalance.

To my mind Turnbull’s various statements on Federal-State relations has now confirmed that he should not be PM nor leader of the Liberal Party. But that party has locked itself to him for the election.

Nobody would deny that Abbott and his Ministers and staff need a holiday. But what sort of a holiday?

Obviously, with Parliament not sitting again until early February there will be a holiday from the day to day debates over legislation and fewer incidents that occur here and overseas will require immediate ministerial reactions: in short, we may temporarily experience less “government”! I recall past experience which provided only “emergency” communication arrangements for Acting PMs at a beach house, including one at a beach which I still frequent at Malua Bay.

In present domestic and international circumstances, not to mention increased media attention, it may be difficult to repeat such a relaxed holiday.  Consider.

First, there is an opportunity and a widely recognised need for a reshuffle of ministers, including some new starters. That would likely take some time and energy. Although Abbott has publicly supported the retention of Hockey as Treasurer, the most obvious need is to shift him out of the Treasurer position but, contrary to many observers, in my view not to replace him with Turnbull. In his handling of the ABC Turnbull has demonstrated little capacity to be the “tough” minister now desperately needed as Treasurer.

The imminent formal announcement that former deputy John Fraser will take over as Treasury Secretary, and with Michael Thawley already started as the new head of Prime Minister’s department, adds to the need for a consistently tough Treasurer who can handle the detail involved. In due course he would find strong support from these two key public service positions and have the potential to present stronger arguments on the national interest need for reducing government spending. As economic circumstances have deteriorated since Abbott started in government, handling the budget problem is now more difficult and requires both a tough PM as well as a tough Treasurer.

Regrettably, Abbott has started his holiday on the wrong foot here. While his decision to prune the PPL is admirable, at the very least he should have indicated a net reduction in  expenditure not simply a switch of funding to nannies. Abbott’s behaviour suggests he needs a nanny to hold his hand before getting on his bike! A tough Treasurer, such as Morrison or Frydenberg backed by the two new public servants, could do that.

Second, while it is too late now to influence the content of the MYEFO due shortly, it is likely that a more extensive and improved explanation of the rationale of the budget, as well as the deterioration in the economic outlook and its effect on the budgetary position, will be needed before Parliament resumes.

Accordingly, once the MYEFO has been released Abbott should announce the move of Hockey (perhaps to Defence) and indicate that his new “team” will be working over the Christmas/New Year period with the aim of presenting such a report before Parliament resumes. That should include an explanation of the “fairness” of limiting spending mainly to those in groups with incomes which are relatively low but which have increased substantially in real terms over the last 20-25 years. It should also announce further reductions over time in expenditures that do not tally with the rationale along with an indication to the states that, in circumstances where the Commonwealth has budgetary difficulties and where the economic outlook has  deteriorated, they too need to expect less assistance. Reference could also be made to the example set by the Newman government in Queensland, which faced with high levels of spending by the Bligh Labor government has now succeeded in actual cuts.

Importantly, such a statement also needs to include an appeal to the Senate to cooperate in the national interest and an indication that the government is prepared to hold extensive discussions with Senators on how to eliminate the deficit without increasing taxation – which almost all agree should not occur. A reference to the Senate should include an indication that a failure to obtain Senate approval of expenditure reductions will necessitate a double dissolution before the next election ie it should imply that even if the polling is unfavourable to the government, closer to the election it would risk a DD that would risk the seats of the independent senators too.

Third, developments in Australia’s involvement in international discussions on global warming add weight to the need for Abbott to publish a government paper indicating the extent of uncertainties in the dangerous warming threat and why Australia is aiming to limit action to reduce usage of fossil fuels. The revelation that Bishop as well as Hunt and Turnbull in some way support reduced usage, albeit qualified by the need to have international agreement, adds to  business and community uncertainty about the government’s attitude, including on the use of renewables. That uncertainty is heightened by Obama’s speech at Queensland University during the G20 meeting. It has also been heightened by the failure of Treasury hitherto to present a factual appraisal, as well of course as the one-sided attitude of the ABC and Fairfax press, not to mention the UN and its affiliates. Given this one-sidedness in the face of extensive evidence supporting sceptics, there is a strong case for Abbott to commission a report on the uncertainties of the “science” and associated warmist analyses. There are ample numbers of scientists and others who could be commissioned, both in Australia and overseas. Such a commissioning should occur during the “holidays”.

Fourth, something also needs to be done to either commission the Productivity Commission to report on the regulatory arrangements on workplace relations or at a minimum to identify the well known concerns with those arrangements. With the help that would undoubtedly come from the Royal Commission’s interim report this month, it would be opportune to publish  a report before Parliament resumes on the problems with  arrangements that are very one-sided in favour of unions which now represent only a small proportion of the work force. The recent HR Nicholls submission to the RC provides examples of this one-sidedness and a government paper could start from there. Such a paper would help engender the debate that is needed about the role of unions.

Last but not least, there is a need to start a public debate on the threat from Muslim extremism in Australia and overseas. Here is a speech on this growing problem made by Geert Wilders in New York. Wilders heads a party in the Netherlands Parliament and, with difficulty, has spoken in Australia at the invitation of our Q Society (I reported recently on a function held by that Society which was addressed by a West Sudanese who had experienced slavery in the Muslim dominated East Sudan).

Wilders has spoken widely on this and he has undoubtedly influenced the 60% of the Dutch who he says now see the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War ll and Islam as the biggest threat today. Wilders views are regarded as extreme by some but are in line with many experts who have published on the issue (see in particular the recent book on  “Sacred Violence, Political Religion in a Secular Age” by Professors David Martin Jones of QUT and M.L.R. Smith of King’s College London).

Many accept the view that most Muslims are peace-loving and should be accepted as such. But note the following from Wilders speech:

“Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion.  Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’.  Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia.  If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies”.

This perspective is one which the government needs to recognise publicly and indicate that Australia does not accept.

In short, my belief is that Abbott’s holiday is likely to be a brief one – or at least should be in his and the nation’s interests.

Following Henry Ergas’s excellent article yesterday arguing that “Abbott must start cleaning out the Augean stable of climate change follies, beginning with the RET” (see below), I have had a letter published today keying off the Ergas article (see below). Note the Letters Ed’s omissions and additions and my error. Unfortunately, the omissions included my suggestion for an independent inquiry to examine the disparate relationship between changes in temperatures and CO2 concentrations.

Big Coal Mine Approved

Coincidentally, in an important “environmental” decision, approval has been given by federal environment minister Hunt (Queensland had already approved) to a proposal by an Indian company, chaired by an Indian billionaire, to develop in Queensland what would be Australia’s largest coal mine (and one of the largest in the world) if it proceeds. There is considerable potential for other coal mines in the same area, including from reserves owned by Palmer and Rinehart. While Hunt observes in his approval that the coal would “provide electricity for up to 100 million people in India”, strong opposition has been declared by environmental activist groups including by Greens senator Waters, who describes is as “an act of climate criminality”.  It will be of some interest to see what attitude is taken by Labor to the approval, which requires 36 “strict conditions” (including in relation to groundwater) to be met. The article below (extracted from the internet and longer than the published article) has the same heading as the one published in The Age, which differs from the internet one.

No Improved TPP Polling, Abbott Should Assume Budget Responsibility

Abbott’s leadership on MH17 has improved his personal polling (now equal to Shorten on “better PM”) but not the TPP (46/54), which continues unchanged with Labor well ahead. Hockey remains the problem. In my letter in today’s AFR (see below) I have suggested Abbott take responsibility for the budget, present a revised one by end August and have a Cabinet reshuffle. The publication of research suggesting there has been no increase in inequality of incomes should be used in explaining the case for reductions in budget expenditures and the widespread benefits from the near 50% increase in per capita incomes over the past 20 years