Institute for Private Enterprise » ABC

Robin Hood & Costs of Inaction

Des Moore — Wed, 08 May 2019 11:26:36 +0000

As Election Time Approaches Shorten Proposes Increasingly Unrealistic Policies

Part of my upbringing involved learning nursery rhymes one of which covered the life of Robin Hood. In those days Robin Hood was portrayed, at least to me, as an outlaw who lived in the forest and whose income came either from the proceeds of his attacks on the local town or from those passing through the forest. But he was portrayed as a hero because he (supposedly) gave the proceeds to the poor. It was only later that I realized that RH’s “fair go” came from failing to allow the local sheriff from observing the law and protecting those who maintained it.

In her article today Janet Albrechsten portrays Shorten as like a Robin Hood who is promising a plethora of “fair go’s” if he receives the necessary votes on May 18. But use of that term inevitably creates problems. Albrechtsen also makes the important point that his historical Labor approach to government is not in Labor’s tradition as represented by Hawke and Keating but more like Whitlam’s. My (considerable) experience of Whitlam is that, while he is still regarded as Labor’s icon, under his regime it was a complete shambles. That led to him only winning an internal challenge from Jim Cairns by one vote and forced him to make Cairns the Treasurer of Australia. But economic management went adrift.

If Shorten wins on May 18, it is likely that his government’s regime would operate similarly to Whitlam’s, although it would be difficult to be as bad. Shorten would likely be followed fairly quickly by left Anthony Albanese becoming the leader (in the internal election in 2013, which included party members as well as members of Parliament, Albanese got more votes than Shorten but not have enough under this system to obtain the Opposition leadership). The large number of policy changes under Shorten, would cause internal disruption even within the Labor party and would be likely to force him out. It would almost certainly make economic management much harder and could see a recession.

Albrechtsen draws attention to policies which are focused on distributional issues and which would cause concern within the party as well as outside it. This would be particularly so in regard to industrial relations, which PM Morrison has dodged in the debates between him and Shorten. By “industrial relations” I include the latter’s policies on relativities between sections of the workforce , such as child care. In my previous Commentary I suggested that Morrison needed to attack the large economic deficiencies in many of these items, including the overall effect on the economy. But while he handled the specifics well in tonight’s debate, he again failed to drive home the inadequacies for the economy.

One of these inadequacies is Shorten’s attempt to dodge the adverse economic effects of his climate policy. His refusal to acknowledge that his policy would have no such effect without taking account of the (unstated) costs of inaction left open a wide area of exposure of which Morrison did not make use. My letter published in today’s Australian obviously (see below) did not reach Morrison or his advisers.

Climate plan costs unjustified

Letter published By The Australian,12:00AM May 8, 2019

You report that, when asked on ABC’s Q&A program about the costs of his environmental policies, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten told host Tony Jones that “you can’t have a debate about climate change without talking about the costs of inaction”.

Well, let’s have a debate about the costs of inaction.

Perhaps the best expert asked to estimate the costs of inaction was Dr Ross Garnaut, who published two long reports for the government on the dangerous warming threat. His conclusion was that the most likely cost of inaction was that dangerous warming would occur in the next century.

One wonders whether Shorten agrees with Garnaut’s best estimate and, if not, when he predicts dangerous warming would start. It is dumb for the Opposition leader to rely on a Garnaut-like estimate but at the same time justify aggressive costs being incurred before 2030 with his economically damaging proposal to reduce emissions by 45 per cent.

Des Moore, South Yarra

Turnbull Can No Longer Be Accepted As a Liberal

Des Moore — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 03:38:03 +0000

Morrison Could Now Distance Himself From Turnbull

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.

CChange Conference; Judith Curry on Predictions of CChange

Des Moore — Sun, 16 Dec 2018 04:15:29 +0000

Climate Change Conference & Judith Curry’s Analysis of Sea Levels

It was great to discover at last Wednesday’s Christmas drinks at Treasury (in Canberra) a number of “oldies” who said they were enjoying my Commentary and in particular the scepticism about the dangerous warming nonsense. While I resigned from Treasury in 1987 I later hoped that, with the danger thesis becoming more widely reflected in government policy both here and overseas, Treasury would publish analyses as John Stone and others had done on various controversial economic subjects during my time there. In fact, I edited a couple including one on the New International Economic Order(NIEO), which had an aim similar to one adopted by believers in the dangerous warming theme viz “save” developing countries by providing squillions of aid which would allow them to substitute costly fuel sources for cheaper fossil fuels.

But such a published Treasury analysis post 1987 was apparently regarded as too “difficult” politically, particularly in circumstances where, after his defeat of Tony Abbott, Turnbull as PM regarded climate change action as one of his main policy objectives. Now that Turnbull has been defeated his successor Scott Morrison has not made it clear what his policy is, although he appears to retain Turnbull’s Paris agreement of reducing emissions by 26-28% by 2030 even though this agreement is non-binding. By stark contrast Opposition Leader Shorten endorses a target of 50% emissions reduction by the same date.

Our main hope for change has been that some prominent world leaders and/or scientists would pour cold water on the danger theme and that this would lead to a reduction in emissions targets. A start has been made with the presidents of Czechoslovakia (Vaclav Havel) and the USA (Trump) rejecting the thesis and an increasing number of scientists exposing the flaws. Trump has indicated the US will formally withdraw from the Paris Agreement made in 2015.

Reports of the climate change conference being held in Poland (due to have finished but still going last night as the 24^th COP) suggest the US attitude has reduced support for action. This reduced support is reflected in

A reduction in world leaders attending. In fact, media reports on the conference do not quote any world leader. With Turnbull gone, the Australian rep is newly appointed Environment Minister Melissa Price and few other countries seem to have sent their leaders. Most noticeable is the absence of French President Macron who boasted of France as a leader of climate change action by imposing a fuel tax and has now had to withdraw it because of yellow-vest protests across France. While these protests are not only being made in support of sceptics of the warming thesis, they send a message to leaders that it would be unwise to adopt the Macron approach of initiating specific policies to reduce usage of fossil fuels. It appears that big producers of fossil fuels, mainly Russia and Saudi Arabia, have supported the US during the conference;
A pro-fossil fuel event was held at the conference by the Trump administration and, according to ABC news, the only non-American panellist at the event was Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment, Patrick Suckling. “Fossil fuels are projected to be a source of energy for a significant time to come,” Mr Suckling said (see ABC on CChange Conference);
The refusal of some countries to include in the communiqué a “welcome” to the last special (sic) IPCC report and instead to make that simply a “note” of the report. However, one report says the communiqué will not include any reference to that report (see BBC on CChange Conference 15/12);
UN chief Antonio Guterres warning that a failure to reach a satisfactory conclusion would be “suicidal,” a point reportedly echoed by small island states fearing for their existence as rising sea levels render their homes uninhabitable.

While Guterres will doubtless attempt to wind up the conference with a communiqué saying that a “consensus” was reached on the need to reduce emissions, any such consensus is unlikely to have the post-conference political support its predecessors felt they had. Also, it will be less difficult politically to justify changes in policies which involve less aggressive action to reduce emissions and provide a longer time frame for continued use of fossil fuels, as Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment implies .

Such possible changes in Australian policy are supported by The Australian’s decision to publish an article on sea levels by US climate scientist Judith Sloan. She assesses estimates of “the maximum possible global sea level rise by the end of the 21st century range from 1.6m to 3m, and even higher, ” as “extreme values of sea level rise … regarded as extremely unlikely or even impossible. Nevertheless, they are driving policies and local adaptation plans”. She also argues that

“climate model predictions consider only human-caused warming and neglect changes in natural climate processes, such as variations in the sun’s output, volcanic eruptions and long-term changes to ocean circulations. These natural processes are expected to have a cooling effect in the 21st century” (see Judith Curry: Alarmist Sea Level Predictions Not Likely to Occur).

Curry’s analyses are of particular importance because she has changed sides. As pointed out in my letter published by The Australian, “after careful research, she became a sceptic and her analysis has been recognised as suitable for publication after peer review” (see CChange Letters 13/12). Other letters published also support Curry and her implicit support for an energy policy which is not based on predictions “regarded as extremely unlikely or even impossible”.

The conclusion in my letter is that “If the Morrison government were to recognise this it could justify lowering Australia’s target for reducing emissions and adopt a policy based on reducing electricity prices”. That would be a potential winner for next year’s election.

Victorian Election

Des Moore — Sun, 25 Nov 2018 04:05:10 +0000

Victorian Liberals Blood Bath

The extent of the Coalition’s loss in the Victorian elections far exceeds predictions in pre-election polling: it looks like a 5% swing against the Coalition which could mean they hold only 25 seats in a Lower House of 88 total seats and could lose 5 of their 16 seats in the Upper House, which has 40 seats. As such their capacity to constitute an effective opposition will be difficult, to say the least. The unanswered question is why such a loss has occurred particularly in the so-called sand-belt area on the east coast of Port Phillip bay which would include middle income groups.

There are numerous explanation for the large loss but there seems little doubt that the Victorian Liberal party under the leadership of Guy (who has been re-elected) failed to explain to the electorate what the Liberal Party stands for and how it distinguishes itself from Labor. For example, he apparently refused to have a debate on Sky News (which now broadcasts through Victoria) and this is reputed to have typified his attitude to media. By contrast Labor leader Andrews’ claim that Victoria under him became the “most progressive state” received attention on the ABC and the Fairfax press.

Guy failed to promote a view which, while agreeing that the state had an important role, also emphasised the importance of the private sectors in providing education, health and transport in particular as well, of course, as expanding the private sector economy, which is much bigger than the government sector. Guy could have made more of the strong economic and population growth in Victoria as reflecting the private sector’s initiatives. He could also have put in perspective Andrews claims of providing state education, health, etc services by pointing out that this is just what state governments are expected to do.

The Liberal Party’s “problems” at the federal level, particularly in regard to the dismissal of Turnbull as leader, would also have contributed to the loss of votes in Victoria. Turnbull’s deliberate undermining of the role of the Liberal Party, both during his leadership and after, undoubtedly caused a loss of “Liberal” voters, as shown in the continued poor polling while he was PM and the almost certain loss of the federal election if he had stayed. The take-over by Scott Morrison has however done little to help, partly because he has given the impression of agreeing with some of what Turnbull did and partly because he has not adequately explained his view on most major policy issues. These developments made it more difficult for Guy to promulgate policies at the state level. Morrison also made only one official visit to Victoria and spent considerable time during the election campaign taking a bus around north Queensland where no election is imminent.

Some Liberals (and the ABC) have argued that, with Michael Kroger as the elected head of the party, it has gone too far to the “right”. But as the failed Turnbull move to the left shows, this claim can scarcely be sustained. Rather, Guy should have moved to the right instead of trying to play down the middle or simply repeating what Andrews said. Shadow Attorney General Pesutto rightly complained that “something’s gone horribly wrong” as he watched the vote count narrow in his own seat of Hawthorn, which he has lost. He added “we’re going to clearly have to do a root-and- branch review, to bottom, of all of this… My own preference would be that the party needs to take urgent action to re-orient and get back on the right foot”. Whether he was using “right” to indicate a shift in the orientation of policies is not clear, but that is what is obviously needed.

As I pointed out in my previous Commentary of 22 November, this was particularly the case in regard to the mishandling of the terrorist threat and the Sudanese gangs by the Andrews government and, in particular, by Attorney General Pakula. An opportunity to use this “gift” to the Coalition was missed.

The one encouraging development from the election is that it appears that the Greens have lost seats in both the lower and upper houses. But this may be more a result of Labor’s attack on them and some self-inflicted wounds than criticism by Guy. Yet he had an opportunity to criticise the rise of electricity prices and the influence of the Greens but instead offered a subsidy.

Overall, whether at the federal or state levels this result is a reflection of the failure of the Liberals to distinguish themselves from Labor. Guy was a major offender and should not be re-elected as leader of the Victorian Liberals. The Newspoll due tomorrow is unlikely to show any improvement at the federal level and could raise questions about the federal leadership, which is already trying to say that the Victorian election was all about state issues (see Vic Election Result Has Federal Implications).

Morrison’s Leadership Still Astray

Des Moore — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 04:19:41 +0000

How Much Longer Can Morrison Last

In my Commentary on 29 October I suggested that last Monday’s Newspoll of a 46/54 TPP, and the negative personal “Satisfaction” rate for Morrison himself, required him to quickly change his current strategy or face the question as to whether he should continue to be leader. I noted that, while Abbott was not currently presenting himself as an alternative PM, he is participating actively in the general political debate and previous PM candidate Dutton is also active as Home Affairs Minister. But on last Monday’s Newspoll Dutton and other Coalition MPs would likely lose their seats and he and other Coalition members ought to be pressing Morrison to address major policy issues and stop announcing fewer handouts designed to demonstrate that he is an “active” PM.

Morrison has at least made a start in rejecting Turnbull’s announcement (sic) that Australia would, in effect, follow Indonesian President’s view against moving Australia’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem (see Morrison Rejects Turnbull on Moving Embassy to Jerusalem). As an Ex-PM Turnbull had no right to make such a statement as he was (wrongly) employed by Morrison only to represent Australia at a conference on oceans. The fact that he made this statement suggests that, contrary to his own promise to keep out of politics once he ceased to be PM, he will involve himself in the political debate. He has already accepted an ABC invitation to be the sole guest at next Thursday’s Jones’s Q&A program, which is well known to support left wing views.

Morrison should now follow up by confirming that Australia will move its embassy because it is in our interests to support Israel as the lone democracy in the Middle East (interestingly, it looks as though the new President of Brazil, Bolsonaro, will also do so). There are other policy matters which could be changed and which would help distance himself from Turnbull (see attached for a brief summary of Turnbull’s history on Henderson on Turnbull). That is not only to move the Liberal Party closer to its supposed objectives: it would also distinguish it much more clearly from a Labor party which might also seek to use Turnbull as an informal adviser. His first attempt to be a politician was of course to join the ALP.

Two issues of importance which Morrison should be able to take quick decisions.

First, is the policy on immigration. In an excellent analysis published in Weekend Australian, Judith Sloan refers to a number of reasons why the level of immigration should be reduced (see Reduced Immigration a Possible Morrison Winner), viz

“there has however been something of a structural break in attitudes to immigration over the past two or three years. According to a recent Newspoll, three-quarters of respondents favoured reducing the permanent migrant intake”;
”in this year’s Lowy Poll“41 per cent agree that “if Australia is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation”.
in a poll conducted by Essential Research in April, “64 per cent expressed the view that the level of immigration has been too high over the past 10 years. Thirty-seven per cent thought the level of immigration was “much too high”.
Katharine Betts of Swinburne University and The Australian Population Research Institute conducted a survey last year which found that three-quarters of respondents thought that Australia did not need any more people. Just over half wanted a reduction in immigration.

Please note that this is very much a summary of Sloan’s article. The full text attached is required reading.

Related to immigration policy is Australia’s policy on asylum seekers. The revelation by Home Affairs minister Dutton that “more than 70 asylum seekers in detention centres on Nauru have knocked back an offer to resettle in the United States when they heard they would have to work and would not receive welfare… the refusal by a sizeable number of people on Nauru to resettle in the US indicated they were not genuine refugees… and that resettling refugees from Nauru in New Zealand would risk restarting the smuggling trade to Australia — where they would end up in Nauru, regardless of whether they have children” (see Asylum Seekers Reject US Offer). Clearly, given the policy announced by Morrison that all children on Nauru will be moved from there by Christmas, there has to be a very careful additional review of the parents.

Another major policy which should be changed is to recognise that the environment “atmosphere” has changed markedly and, at the very least, to support the moderation of our climate change policy. In an article in Weekend Australian by Environment Editor, Graham Lloyd, he points to the “conflicting signals including the demise of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the rise of authoritarian president-elect Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. Together with Donald Trump’s withdrawal of climate change funding and threats to leave the Paris Agreement altogether, the global sentiment going into Poland is vastly different from that coming out of Paris in December”. Analysis by the pro-action Climate Home News is that ‘the alliance of rich, emerging and poor economies that sealed the Paris climate deal is falling apart’. In many countries, it says, ‘climate scepticism and economic nationalism are usurping the international green enthusiasm of 2015’ (see Paris Agreement Falling Apart).

Lloyd’s article shows there are many points which support a moderation in our policy. In particular he points out that the federal opposition climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler wrongly states that: “We’ve also seen the biannual survey of company directors for the first time place climate change, or action on climate change, at the top of the list of challenges that company directors think the federal government should be acting on.” In fact, as Lloyd points out that “A full reading of the Australian Institute of Company Directors report shows otherwise. The leading economic challenges cited are rising global economic protectionism, global economic uncertainty, energy policy, taxation system, high energy prices, red tape, low productivity growth, the China economic outlook and then climate change. Climate change is considered a major long-term issue for government to solve. But what business wants the government to concentrate on now is energy policy, tax reform and infrastructure” (underlining added).

IPCC Report and Criticisms of Policies on CChange

Des Moore — Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:19:50 +0000

More on IPCC Report

My Commentary on Sunday drew attention to the address in London by highly regarded meteorology professor and US Academy member, Richard Lindzen, and his remarks that Australia’s political class has “gone completely bonkers in their response to climate change alarmism and hadn’t taken the time to actually read and understand the science”. He added ‘I can’t imagine what suicidal instincts reside in Australia’s political class.’ ‘In asking me to comment on the Australian response, you are asking the wrong person. You need to speak to someone specializing in abnormal psychology.’

I have been able to get the gist of this put in the lead letter in today’s Australian, viz

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report concluded that under existing policies coal use will likely be phased out by 2050 and there is a risk the Great Barrier Reef might disappear. Yet the main response to such possible important changes for Australia by Prime Minister Scott Morrison is that the report is not binding while Environment Minister Melissa Price says it is not policy prescriptive.

By contrast, US meteorology professor Richard Lindzen, reportedly said Australia’s political class had “gone completely bonkers in their response to climate change alarmism and hadn’t taken the time to actually read and understand the science”. He added: “I can’t imagine what suicidal instincts reside in Australia’s political class. In asking me to comment on the Australian response, you are asking the wrong person. You need to speak to someone specialising in abnormal psychology.”

The opportunity exists for the Morrison government to take advantage of the serious deficiencies in the IPCC report and modify existing climate change policies including by withdrawing from the non-binding Paris accord. Labor’s emphasis on renewables can be dismissed by Lindzen’s conclusion of an “obvious need for something more plausible to ‘sustain’ the renewables bubble”. (Other letters about the report are here in Letters on IPCC).

While the Morrison government has so far made no change in government policy since the abandonment of the NEG, the need to have a policy environment which will allow power prices to fall does require changes in energy policy. It appears that, with Turnbull’s departure, sceptics from within Coalition ranks are starting to become more vocal.

Today’s Australian points out that former Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce’s call for the federal government to “favour new coal-fired power stations over the proposed $4.5 billion Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project yesterday reignited the coal-versus-renewable debate, with a second Coalition backbencher expressing doubts about the scheme’s viability” notwithstanding an environmental economist saying “to dump it would be irresponsible”. Queensland Nationals MP Keith Pitt, an electrical engineer, said that it is likely that the money for Snowy 2.0 “would be better spent on building coal-fired power stations that got around the problem of intermittent energy of renewable”. .. “Building things based on ideology usually means taxpayers get it in the neck,” Mr Pitt said. (see Barnaby Critical of Snowy Plan). The addition to the Snowy scheme was of course proposed by former PM Turnbull.

On last night’s ABC Q&A, in response to US Professor Sachs’s assertion that inaction on climate policies by both the Australian and US governments are “unbelievably irresponsible to you and to all of the world”, prominent Victorian Senator James Paterson pointed out that Australia’s emissions make up only “about 1% of global emissions”. “If you shut Australian industry and jobs down tomorrow it would make no difference to the global climate.”(see Patterson on ABC). This realization is becoming more widespread and is reducing support for Australia being a leader in reducing emissions, which was the role adopted by Turnbull when PM.

Morrison on Energy Policy & IPCC Report

Des Moore — Fri, 12 Oct 2018 03:34:41 +0000

Background on IPCC Report

The IPCC has published what it describes as a “Special Report” whose press release astonishingly claims it has been “approved by governments”. There is no sign of any such approval and the only Australian on the drafting committee is a professor of Danish origin from Queensland who is a believer in climate change problems and would be highly unlikely to have secured government approval. The Chair is a South Korean economist who seems to have no publishing record. These activists are, we are told, assisted by 91 authors, 133 contributing authors, and a total of 42,001 expert and government review comments.

Further, using the press release as a guide, the “science” of the report seems the same as in the many previous IPCC reports. This “science” is that the continued use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) will produce dangerously high temperatures because the emissions from fossil fuels stay concentrated in the atmosphere and this leads to temperatures increasing to dangerously high levels. To prevent that the use of fossil fuels must thus be constrained/stopped by governments. Accordingly, the report aims to stop temperatures from reaching 1.5C above pre-industrial levels (which appears to be from about 1850) whereas previous reports have envisaged allowing for a somewhat higher increase (the Paris agreement envisaged an aim of “well below 2C”).

It says that the decision to compile a report originated from the Paris Agreement of 2015, which led to some countries (incl Australia) agreeing to targets to reduce emissions of CO2 and to provide aid of $100 bn per annum to help less developed countries. This means that some of the biggest emitters, such as China and India, will continue to emit and, with the announced withdrawal of the US by Trump, total world emissions are likely to continue to increase.

The IPCC claims that its analyses are scientifically based and it argues that, if action is taken to limit global warming to 1.5C, there will be “clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems” as well as “strengthening… sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty”. The report acknowledges this would require“rapid and far-reaching” changes in economic and social structures and “net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero ’around 2050”. This then leads it to a remarkable conclusion that “any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air” (see IPCC Special Report Press Release Oct 2018).

No account appears to be taken in the report of the implications of the big emitters being “let off” or of the US withdrawal, which means that in practice Australia is one of a limited number of contributors making emissions reductions even though we actually contributes only 1.3 per cent of total emissions (Australia has already made a small contribution to the $100 bn per annum agreed at Paris). In fact, by drawing attention to reducing the usage of fossil fuels through ceasing the use of coal Australia is in a sense a target of the Report. Further, given that the Australian who is on the drafting committee claims expertise on coral reefs, it is unsurprising that the Report draws attention to the risks faced by the Great Barrier Reef.

This is not the place to attempt detailed comments on the “scientific” basis of the IPCC thesis, other than to point out that there have been two periods since the early 20th century when temperatures have been relatively stable despite CO2 concentration levels having increased strongly. This suggests little or no correlation between the two ie prima facie, this means that even though human activity does contribute to CO2 concentrations, they could be having only a minor effect on total temperatures. Note also that, as only a relatively small proportion of CO2 concentrations appear to stay in the atmosphere, this suggests that other factors are likely to be more causitative contributors to temperature increases (further extensive analysis is available on my web site www.ipe.net.au). Yet the IPCC analysis implies that temperature increases are all due to increases in CO2 concentrations and that this conclusion is science-based.

The report refers to a number of “impacts” which could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5C. But this does not appear to be correct.

Sea levels would be 10 cm lower than if temperatures were allowed to increase to 2C by 2100. But this is not of real concern as, at the current rate of increase, sea levels would increase by only about 30 cm by 2100 and this would not involve any significant additional flooding;
The number of times when freedom of ice occurs in the Arctic Ocean would be much less than with temperatures of 2C. But the melting of ice in the Arctic is of no concern as the ice there is already floating on the sea and its melting does not add to sea levels;
Virtually all coral reefs would be lost with a 2C temperature compared with a loss of only 70-90 percent with a 1.5C. But there is no evidence of any significant reduction in such reefs in present temperatures and the recent bleachings in the Great Barrier Reef may mainly reflect light winds limiting the flow of cooler water over the reef;
There has been more extreme weather under current temperatures. But past Australian droughts occurred when global temperatures were lower than now and wetter years occurred when such temperatures were rising.
Re the GBR, an attempt to “save” the reef from the effects of higher global temperatures would require other countries (incl China and India) to participate in measures which reduce temperatures.

Overall, there are fundamental faults in the statistical and scientific analyses in this IPCC report and it does not provide any justification for the policies adopted by Australian governments to reduce emissions of CO2. Indeed, those reductions which have already occurred are reducing the extent of CO2 which would otherwise allow and encourage additional growth of vegetation.

Morrison Government’s Reaction to IPCC

An excellent editorial in The Australian of Wednesday 10 October outlines the reactions by Morrison and two of his Ministers, viz

“Scott Morrison has declined to follow Donald Trump in quitting the non-binding global compact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the Prime Minister has sent a clear message that in a nation responsible for only 1.3 per cent of global emissions, his government will retain perspective on what action it will take. When the latest IPCC report was released on Monday, a full contingent of senior government ministers was prepared to put the interests of consumers ahead of the climate science community dictates.

Mr Morrison said the report — which states coal use must be phased out worldwide by 2050 to limit future warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial averages — would not be binding on us. “Let’s not forget that Australia accounts for just over 1 per cent of global emissions, so there are a lot bigger players than us out there impacting on these arrangements,” Mr Morrison said. Josh Frydenberg said without coal the lights would go out along Australia’s eastern seaboard. Environment Minister Melissa Price said the IPCC report was designed to inform policymakers but was not policy proscriptive. She followed up with a plain-speaking interview on ABC radio saying that climate scientists had “drawn a long bow” on coal and it would be irresponsible to commit to a full phase-out by 2050. Coal is on track to become the nation’s most valuable export this year. “I just don’t know how you could say by 2050 that you’re not going to have technology that’s going to enable good, clean technology when it comes to coal,” Ms Price said.

Such direct language would have been unthinkable only a short time ago but it is exactly what the Australian public deserves to hear. It signals a true contest on energy policy at the next federal election”.

One hopes that there is in fact such a “true contest”. But it would have been helpful to the Coalition’s prospects if the government had indicated that, while it will carefully examine the report, it is not convinced by the scientific analysis used in the report. That would more clearly delineate itself from Labor and could still be done. It would provide an opportunity to say that perceived questions about various aspects of a report which provides the basis of policies adopted in Paris re-opens questions about such policies. This would be an important precursor to the next IPCC meeting in Poland in December.

As Environment Minister Melissa Price almost told the ABC that there may be deficiencies in the report, before Poland it would be useful to have a published report by the government, involving some of the many outsiders who are experts, identifying queries about the IPCC report, particularly in regard to the possible effect of CO2 concentrations on temperature increases since 1850. In my letter published in today’s Australian I say that

“The IPCC report claims that limiting global warming to 1.5C would reduce various alleged adverse effects from higher temperatures caused by humans.

But it overstates the increase in temperatures since its starting point around 1850 and fails to recognise that most of the increase has not been caused by human activity. It also fails to recognise the enormous benefits that have developed from the increase in carbon emissions that has occurred since that period started.

True, there has been a slight increase in sea levels but the IPCC wrongly claims more extreme weather. Any adverse effects from climate changes are similar to what occurred prior to 1850, and we are now much better equipped to handle them”(see OZ Letters for other letters expressing concern about the Report).

It is of particular interest that Morrison stated that the idea of phasing out the use of coal is not binding on Australia. Such an approach by the government could also be made in regard to Australia’s non-binding agreement at Paris to reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2030. Morrison has indicated that Australia will reach its target in a “canter”. But why not leave the horse to rest in the field for a while?

Morrison Becoming a Hasty Decision-Maker

Des Moore — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 05:03:32 +0000

Polling Under Morrison Still Needs Big Improvement

Yesterday’s Commentary referred to a number of policy decisions and comments on policy positions made by PM Morrison which raised concern about the directions being taken by him and, in particular, whether his government is differentiating itself from the leftish Turnbull government to a substantive degree. The publication of an article in Spectator of 6 October by John Stone (see Stone on Morrison), and other developments, suggest the Morrison government does not seem at present to have the capacity to handle issues in a way conducive to attracting the electorate to the Coalition.

This concern has increased with the latest quarterly Fairfax poll published yesterday showing the Coalition still well behind on a TPP of 47/53 per cent. While this covers part of the period Turnbull was in power, and it is an improvement since the previous poll of 45/55, the headline to the accompanying SMH article – “huge road ahead of Scott Morrison and the Coalition” – is correct (see Fairfax Poll Shows Coalition 47/53). It seems likely that Monday’s Newspoll will also only show a similar improvement since its previous poll of 46/54 published on 24 September.

Stone’s DIS-CON NOTES

While acknowledging that “Morrison deserves some time to ‘prove’ himself”, Stone is critical of a range of decisions to date. These include the dumping of the decisions to raise to 70 the age at which the pension becomes available, the floating of a possibility of having an Aboriginal equivalent to Australia Day, and the acceptance of argument that adherence to the Paris climate accord be retained simply because it would otherwise offend Pacific Island governments. His DIS-CON NOTES also draw attention to the need to frame policies to handle forthcoming UN meetings which seek global control on immigration policy and the establishment of a legally binding treaty on reducing emissions and providing aid to developing countries of $US100 bn per annum to help with the alleged global warming threat.

Stone argues that the right decisions on these issues “will reassure all those Dis-Cons without whose votes he cannot win the next election” and he suggests other decisions which would help too:

Cut immigration by (say) 80,000 per annum, spread over the next two years; reject the Aboriginal industry’s presumptuous demand for a constitutionally imbedded ‘voice’ in the parliament; seek out a top quality businessman, with real media experience and a clear understanding of the ABC’s political bias, to appoint as its chairman; announce that the government will, if re-elected, move to abolish the Human Rights Commission.

Other Developments Which Need Urgent Attention

These include

A response to polling showing the once-safe seat of Wentworth is “on a knife-edge ahead of the October 20 poll” (see Wentworth Outlook) .
Ensuring that urgent attention is given by the Special Minister of State appointed by Morrison to examine the apparent over-spending on communications by minister Stuart Robert who Morrison re-appointed as a minister and is reported as being Morrison’s numbers man (see Stuart Robert).
An explanation by Morrison himself of whether the Australian Power Project CEO is correct in predicting a significant rise in gas/electricity prices in this summer and, if so, what he intends to do about it (see Power Prices Predicted to Rise).
Why Morrison has so brusquely rejected the offer by Shorten to discuss immigration policy (this is on Immigration Policybut Morrison has since rejected the offer in a “not worth considering” manner).
Whether Social Services minister Fletcher has responded correctly on the possible addition to budget spending under the NDIS scheme (see NDIS Threat to Budget)

The Process of Decision Making

This article by The Australian’s political editor, Dennis Shanahan, draws attention to the failures occurring in the political decision-making process and he quotes from a report by the IPA. The IPA finds there is “pressure for senior politicians in governments and oppositions to make decisions quickly and confidently to appear decisive, pander to populist ideas to appear responsive, manufacture wedge issues to distinguish themselves from their opponents, and to put a spin on everything to exaggerate its significance”.

Unfortunately, Morrison seems increasingly to be in the hasty-decision making category.

Government Policies/Advocacies

Des Moore — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:56:06 +0000

Today’s media contains reports which are of serious concern in regard to the capacity of governments and political leaders to operate or propound policies which are in the interests of communities considered as an entity rather than of particular groups. These are briefly described below and, except for two, the attachments.

Morrison Government Policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morrison Off Tracks

Des Moore — Mon, 01 Oct 2018 13:11:58 +0000

Morrison Off More Tracks

Comments now emanating from the PM and Treasurer are alarming. They imply that the Coalition is following a line that is not dissimilar to that adopted by Turnbull and most of the ministers he appointed (some of which have in fact been re-appointed by Morrison). It would not be surprising if Turnbull himself has been consulted on some issues which have emerged since he lost his PM position (Morrison indicated last week that he had been speaking to Turnbull “pretty frequently”). True, some have responded well to Morrison’s more acceptable mannerisms than those attributed to Turnbull, but what counts is the substance of decision-making.

Today’s appearance of what is described as a secret recording by Turnbull (but is obviously deliberately leaked) made in New York suggests that he has in fact been in communication with Morrison and Morrison himself is reported at a press conference today as acknowledging (again) that he talks to Turnbull “quite regularly”. It is reported that yesterday he said he was confident the government would have won the next election under Turnbull, which Turnbull himself now claims also (see Turnbull on Rudd/Abbott).

Note that Turnbull uses this recording to attack Abbott as having been hanging “around embittered” after he ceased to be PM and yet Morrison claims that Turnbull is no longer in politics! Another way of interpreting Turnbull’s secret recording is that he is continuing to undermine the Liberal party.

Re the ABC, in my Commentary yesterday I suggested that Morrison is on the wrong track in commissioning a departmental review of “the facts” on ABC developments. Instead he should have indicated that public broadcasting will be reviewed and that, if retained in its present form, the ABC’s role (and budget) will be much reduced. With the imminent election in Wentworth, Morrison may have decided to try not to make the ABC an election issue. But he has exposed himself to questions about his decisions to date and they will appear before Wentworth.

Today, Andrew Bolt suggests that Morrison’s appointment of board member Ferguson as Acting Chair is wrong because she has a strong bias and, if he fails to appoint to the board position vacated by Milne a “real agent of change, the Liberals will “spend the next two terms of a Labor government with an even more emboldened ABC crusading against all they stand for” (see ABC). This conclusion is similar to the one I made in my Commentary.

The latest comment by Morrison is that the ABC should “get back to work”, which as one of the biasters pointed out, they have not left. He also threatened to give the board “more attention” if they don’t “do better”. But he does not appear to have explained why Ferguson was appointed chair.

Re the $443mn unsolicited grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, it is difficult to see why as (then) Treasurer Morrison has now accepted responsibility for approving the grant. His attempted justification for making the grant is pathetic and further reduces his credibility as PM (see Barrier Reef Grant), as well as adding to the Turnbullite image he seems to have developed.

There is little doubt that Morrison will now lose any confidence he may have had with the “conservatives” in the party.