Institute for Private Enterprise » AFR

Election Campaign Still Not Informing Voters

Des Moore — Tue, 16 Apr 2019 22:18:41 +0000

I start by mentioning that my daughter, Lisa, is re-visiting us in Australia after performing in America (where she presently lives) to give piano recitals here. She has recently played on several occasions in New York and has had excellent reviews in the NY Times. Her first recital here on this occasion is at the Melbourne Recital Centre next Wednesday at 6pm (the program is here and tickets are available – phone 9699 3333).

Election Campaign A Scatter: But Started Favouring Morrison

Yesterday’s electioneering has started across scattered issues, with both sides seemingly stuck on announcing every day small amounts of new money for initiatives regarding which the great majority know little about (other of course than to “buy votes”). The Coalition needs to focus more on the economic picture which, Morrison says, is what the Coalition is all about. Rather surprisingly, Shorten has attracted media criticism while Morrison has come off largely scot free. Of particular interest was that the leftish Australian Financial Review drew considerable attention to Shorten’s problems. It is encouraging that this section of the media has (almost) given a bipartisan view/comment.

The heading of the AFR article “Shorten’s $34b Super Gaffe” clearly does not help Shorten. It relates partly to Shorten’s response at a press conference that “We have no plans to increase taxes on superannuation … (or) to introduce any new taxes on superannuation.” In fact, it appears that there is a Labor policy which would raise $37bn over a decade from the super industry. As the article says, “Labor has announced four superannuation policies ahead of the election campaign, which the Coalition estimates would see a $34 billion increase in tax over a decade, hitting hundreds of thousands of workers” ( for details see article). Excuses have been made by Labor spokesmen and Shorten now seems to be saying that he meant no additional taxes are intended.

In what the article describes as an “awkward press conference”, Shorten also “repeatedly declined to answer questions about the impact the opposition’s carbon emissions reduction policies would have on the economy”. The Australian also reports on this press conference (see Shorten in Testy Clash with Reporter) and, if more journalists were prepared to follow suit, voters might get a reasonably accurate picture of what both sides are proposing. In an interview tonight Shorten did say that he does not agree with the model produced by Dr Fisher (that was reported in an earlier Commentary now on my web). But Shorten did not offer any estimate other than to say that the economy will grow by a particular amount, which interviewer Dr Stone claimed would mean a slower rate.

But changes need to go further than this. As I have argued in earlier Commentary, an attempt should be made by the media and other organizations to highlight the failure of Labor to produce an alternative Budget to the 2019/20 to 2022-23 one recently presented to Parliament by the Coalition. This is “standard practice” and should concentrate on what might happen in the next four years, not the next ten for which any figuring is pretty meaningless (in fact, budgets normally describe any figures after the next two years as “projections”, not estimates).

Today’s Australian published my letter (see below) expressing concern that Labor has not done the same as the Coalition and arguing that at least Bowen should ask the Parliamentary Budget Office (with whom Bowen appears to have been in close contact and which body has (properly) advised Bowen) to produce a Labor budget.

The absence of any such alternative budget by Labor has led to a suggestion made on Sky News tonight by Dr Judith Sloan and Dr Andrew Stone that Labor has gone into the election without being adequately prepared and is now in a catch up phase. As the AFR article says, “Labor was forced on the backfoot over revelations it had deleted dozens of paragraphs of details over its negative gearing and capital gains tax policies from its website”. Shorten should certainly be pressured by the media and of course by the Coalition to produce a full explanation of its policies as well as an alternative budget.

Bowen needs to back up his economics policies with proper costings

Letter Published by The Australian, April 17, 2019 (Bit in square brackets deleted by Ed).

Your survey of the initial election promises by the two main parties (“Voter disillusionment fed by dishonesty in politics”, 16/4) raises concerns about their effect on total budget spending and revenue [and whether some promises can actually be implemented]. The Coalition has already provided an estimated budget for the next four years, including tiny surpluses, and this should be updated during the campaign if even further additional spending is announced.

There is particular concern that Labor is not providing any alternative budget except to claim its surpluses will be larger than the Coalition’s. But how can we voters assess that claim without also having estimates for spending and revenue.

True, estimates by Treasury made before the campaign started show that the level of taxation under Labor would reach 26 per cent of GDP whereas the Coalition has confirmed it would not rise beyond 23.9 per cent.

Surprisingly, Labor Treasurer Chris Bowen has questioned Treasury estimates but without providing any himself. This despite the public’s legitimate interest and his access to the Parliamentary Budget Office, which he should now ask to publish its assessment of Labor’s costings as soon as possible.

Des Moore, former deputy secretary, Treasury, South Yarra.

Coalition Election Campaign Starts Poorly

Des Moore — Sun, 14 Apr 2019 11:33:11 +0000

Is Coalition Able to Persuade Electorate of Dangers in Labor’s Program?

The campaign for the election on 18 May started officially on11 April although statements of policy had been made prior to that, as had media assessments. Two prominent conservative commentators had in fact already indicated their view that Labor will win.

Terry McCrann wrote on 11 Apr “One thing is absolutely crystal clear about the election. If Labor wins — as to me, seems certain — it will hit the ground running, straight after the election, in June”. He added that “it has a program to dramatically increase taxes on negative gearing, franking credits, capital gains and trusts; it will not cut the company tax on big companies from 30 per cent, which is now very uncompetitive, with the US down to 21 per cent, and will revisit the cut on medium-sized companies; it will also further squeeze especially small and medium-sized businesses with the so-called “living wage”; and then there’s the whole issue of power prices, which will just continue to increase and increase at an accelerating rate under Labor’s so-called climate change policy” (see McCrann Says Coalition Won’t Win).

Andrew Bolt doesn’t rule out the remote possibility of a Coalition win but argues that Morrison must upgrade himself and the Coalition. He asks “Where on earth is your mongrel? Your fight? Your big wake-up-Australia cry? You’re starting behind, remember. Three seats short of a majority already, and with every poll saying you’re headed for a hiding”. Bolt adds that the Coalition also faces a starting point that the “polls show they’ve been itching to do for two and half years – to vote out this brawling, divided Coalition Government that’s given us three different Prime Ministers but next to no wage growth”. Yet, he asks, “what does Morrison do in his first and most important speech of the election campaign? What a snooze-fest” (see Bolt Says Morrison Must Attack Labor Policies).

The Weekend Australian’s editorial does not predict the likely winner of the election campaign but points out that, while “the Prime Minister is offering to boost incomes through a larger economy, running on his party’s traditional values, such as hard work, enterprise and aspiration”, the Opposition Leader promises to “radically change an economic system … Labor’s method is more spending on services, funded by new taxes on high earners, property owners, retirees and investors. To raise award wages for some workers, Mr Shorten will hand more power to unions and revamp the terms by which the industrial umpire determines the minimum wage. This is old-school Labor, buried in 1983 after Bob Hawke won office: redistribution to promote equality. ‘When everyday Australians are getting a fair go, then this economy hums’, Mr Shorten said on Thursday in a backyard appeal to voters”itorial (see OZ Editorial).

In short, there is a wide view that a win for Labor would likely mean a major change in how the economic system operates, with a bigger role for government services, a major deterrent to private investment and a slower rate of economic growth. Australia would move away from America and towards the European Union (sic) from which some members are trying to escape. This possibility should provide a basis for a Coalition attack.

What is the Likely Effect of Labor’s Proposed Expansion In Government

The extent to which government might expand under Labor is indicated by its proposed increase in the level of taxation to almost 26 per cent of GDP over the next ten years. At this level Labor would be the highest taxing government ever: the previous highest was 24.3% of GDP in 2005-06 (see AFR Quotes Treasury Estimates Of Australia Being Highest Taxer Under Labor).

By contrast, the Coalition’s 2019/20 budget estimate for taxation is 23.3% of GDP and that is not estimated to increase over the following three years. It also has a self-imposed undertaking to not increase taxation to more than 23.9% of GDP. Note that if tax levels were at Labor’s 26% of GDP next year that would mean total taxation of about $520bn, or about $60bn or 13% more than estimated by the Coalition ie this would be about an increase in the size of government at the Federal level.

There are precedents for large increases in the size of the Federal government in Australia.

First, when the Labor government was in office under Hawke from March 1982, taxation levels increased in the four years from 1982-83 to 1986-87 by no less than about 60% in real terms. In 1986-87 taxation revenue reached the same level as is estimated next year – 23.3% of GDP – up from 21.7% in 1982-83. At the same time, moreover, the budget deficit increased and ran at a much higher level, which led then Treasurer Keating to warn that Australia was in danger of being regarded as a banana republic. Then, thanks mainly to then Labor Finance Minister Walsh, action was taken to reduce spending for three years in a row (from 27.0 % to 22.9 % of GDP) and a budget surplus also followed for three years. An almost complete reversal of budget policy.

Second, in response to the global financial crisis originating in the US, the first Rudd government (2007-10) moved the budget from a surplus of 1.7% of GDP to a deficit of 2.1% in 2008-09 and deficits and relatively high levels of spending continued into the next few years. Whether this had any substantive effect in “saving” the economy remains in dispute. But Australia’s relatively strong banking system and high levels of trade with China certainly helped maintain growth and prevent any recession. Then, despite expenditure reductions by the Abbott government in 2014-15, deficits continued at relatively high levels under the Turnbull government (2015-18) until 2017-18 when that government brought the deficit down to 0.5% of GDP. However, expenditures remained at the relatively high level of 24.5% of GDP in that year and have continued at around that level even after the Morrison government took office in August 2018 and produced the 2019-20 budget.

In short, Hawk’s attempt in the 1980s to effect a large increase in the size of government did not succeed and nor can Rudd claim success in his attempt to adopt a Keynesian increase in spending and deficits in response to the global financial crisis which centred in the US. The Australian economy was primarily “saved” by our relatively strong banking system and our trade with China. However, under Labor and Turnbull, taxation levels have crept up again to over 23% of GDP since 2018-19 and we now face the prospect that Labor would increase that further to 26% of GDP at some time over the next ten years.

Conclusion

Labor’s proposal to increase the level of taxation to 26% of GDP, and to concentrate increases on those on high incomes, is likely to have adverse effects on investment and economic growth (see Uren’s Analysis Shows Labor’s Taxes Increase More Than Spending Plans). Such adverse effects would also come if Labor proceeds with reductions in emissions and increases in renewables at both the Federal and State levels. History also suggests that Labor finds it difficult to, as Morrison has said, “manage money”. Also, while it claims to be aiming for bigger budget surpluses than the Coalition, it is unclear as to how much it will aim to exceed the Coalition’s present estimate of about 0.5% of GDP.

As to the budget overall, we can speculate that with Labor having, say, a 1% GDP budget surplus and 26% of GDP from tax, that leaves 25% of GDP for spending. This is only about 0.5% of GDP higher than the Coalition’s estimates for each of the four years to 2022-23. It suggests that Labor’s additional spending for each of those years might not be much greater than present Coalition estimates. Still the opportunity is there for the Coalition to attack Labor’s proposed increases in levels of taxation and spending, reminding the electorate of Labor’s failures with higher levels of spending in the past and the adverse economic effects of higher levels of taxation. This requires Morrison to stop announcing “handouts” and concentrate on informing the electorate of the problems with Labor’s proposals.

Coalition Must Take Now Risks with Policies & leaders

Des Moore — Tue, 12 Mar 2019 07:32:43 +0000

Time to Take Risks

In yesterday’s Commentary I argued that, given the latest Newspoll (and for policy reasons too), the Coalition should “change courses” asap. I also sent a letter to OZ (unpublished) advocating the cancellation of Turnbull’s membership of the Liberal Party. My advocacies are based on my perspective that, although risky, the Coalition needs to take risks now if it is to have any chance of winning the election and that an improved set of policies would in any event provide a better starting point in Opposition to a Labor government.

It was encouraging to receive a number of responses in basic agreement with this approach. And in his article yesterday’s Herald Sun (see Bolt on Abbott as Possible Leader), and again in his presentation last night on Sky News, Andrew Bolt rejected the idea of a new leader who is “a near-unknown that no one hates” because “such risk-aversion rarely ends well”. Instead, he suggests that Abbott would be best and that “helping him will mean that the Liberals after the election will again be overwhelmingly conservative, given how many of the Left are resigning or likely to lose”.

Of course, in principle nobody wants yet another change in leadership. But while Morrison has tried hard, the polling and such limited policy changes as he has offered, are clearly insufficient to swing voters. This is particularly the case with the policy that will be most important in the period prior to the election – energy. Yet Morrison has just rejected the idea of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and has ignored the adverse economic effects from the retention of the Coalition’s target to reduce emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030. Except for possible initial “voluntary” falls, the promised lower electricity prices would only occur if dictated by Federal Energy Minister Taylor.

However, in today’s Herald Sun, Terry McCrann points out, first, that while “the government’s proposed 26-28 per cent cuts are anything but timid, (they) are among the biggest cuts proposed by any country anywhere in the world”. And, second, that Labor’s proposed cuts in emissions of 45 per cent are equivalent to 55 per cent in per capita terms, which would be “entirely and exactly pointless. Those cuts can’t and won’t move the ‘Earth’s temperature’ even by one-ten-thousandth of a degree” (see Labor’s 45% Emissions Cuts Equal 55% per Cap: McCrann).

This analysis could provide a basis for a leader of the Coalition to at least moderate its emissions target and tell voters that Labor’s energy policy would cause much greater economic damage than the Coalition’s. Abbott as a leader would be well placed to convey that to voters if the Liberal’s were prepared to take that risk.

Monetary Policy

These days not many observers of the politico/eco scene take a close interest in monetary policy and many look to central banks to just keep them as low as possible without considering possible adverse economic effects. But it is important to recognise that “low” interest rates may have such adverse effects, including over a period of time. On 11 March I had a letter published in the AFR pointing out that the household saving ratio fell from 10% in 2008-09 to just over 5% today and this has been reflected in an increase in household debt and may account for “an increased tendency to reduce spending rates on consumption and housing. One possible explanation is that monetary policy allowed interest rates at relatively low levels for too long, resulting in higher borrowings and excessive debt levels” (see letter as published below).

In short, the recent slow-down in economic growth may be partly reflecting a pause in spending as household debt reaches levels which consumers and small businesses judge to be too high in present “risky” political conditions. Almost coincidentally, it was reported that RBA experts found that, ”all else being equal, a 1 per cent drop in interest rates would, over the long run, boost house prices by 17 per cent. The cash rate has been slashed from 4.75 per cent throughout most of 2011 to its current record-low level of 1.5 per cent as the central bank attempted to offset the end of the mining boom and encourage activity in the housing and consumption sector” (see RBA Analysis Suggests “Low” Interest Rates Stimulate Housing Construction).

In other words, the RBA may have allowed interest rates to go down too far or to go too low for too long, resulting, first, in excessive house prices and debt and, second, that this may have contributed to the current slow-down in GDP. If this is correct it may mean that, contrary to some analysts, there should not be any further reduction in interest rates – unless of course an unlikely recession occurs.

Interestingly, the US Federal Reserve has made four increases in interest rates whereas our RBA Head, Phillip Lowe, after threatening increases, has backed off. Of course, it would not be a good time politically for Lowe to increase rates even if he felt the inclination: from that viewpoint better to stay at present rates. Note that the head of the US Fed, Jerome Powell, has been under pressure from Trump to “keep rates low” with a view to help maintaining the strong growth in the US. But in what has been described as an “unusual” interview in public, Powell has asserted his independence (see Fed Chair Makes Unusual Interview). Lowe would be well advised to make his independence clear when he reports RBA monthly meetings to Treasurer Frydenberg.

Rate Cut Wrong in an Era of High Debt
(Letter by Des Moore published in AFR, 11 March 2019)

More Ministers Quit; Treasury Officer’s Life

Des Moore — Sun, 03 Mar 2019 22:31:36 +0000

Can Morrison Cope with Two More Cabinet Departures

Last Friday’s Commentary suggested that the latest Coalition’s Newspoll of 47/53 for the third successive time indicated that the Morrison government was still in serious trouble. I suggested that the additional policy decisions announced by Morrison on climate policy would be unlikely to help close the gap.

These measures included acceptance of the Paris agreement and an expanded use of renewable through the establishment of the very uneconomic Snowy2.0 and the usage of “big batteries”. Energy Minister Taylor also claimed the new measures would cut energy bills while lowering emissions but this failed to take account of the additional costs from using the Snowy or from back-ups needed when other renewable are not available. I noted that it seemed unlikely that the Energy Minister would be able to reduce electricity prices except through the adoption of a regulatory system which legally limited the maximum price able to be charged by retailers.

While the Cabinet elevation of Senator Reynolds to Defence Minister (from Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) means the Morrison cabinet now has the greatest representation of women in the senior ministry of any government, Pyne will stay as head of that ministry until after the election, when he will not stand for return to Parliament. Mr Morrison said of Senator Reynolds: “When you can call up a brigadier, in the form of Linda Reynolds, to take on the role of defence minister, it shows we have a lot of talent on our bench to draw from. Linda will be the second female to serve in a cabinet-ranked defence portfolio. She will bring the number of female members in the cabinet to seven. “This is the highest number of any cabinet since federation.” More importantly, in the interviews she has conducted since her appointment, Reynolds has shown she should have become a cabinet minister some time ago.

The recent loss of several Coalition Ministers, including (until the election) of Pyne as a senior Minister and the immediate resignation of Defence Industry Minister Ciobo, has led some to question whether this might not allow Morrison greater freedom to run the “ship” and to have the Coalition become a genuine “conservative” party with a reduced influence from so-called moderates. Of particular importance in this regard is the end of Pyne, who is reported as once saying he could have stood for Labor, and ran as a Liberal only because he lived in a Liberal seat (see Norington’s Analysis of Pyne or Realities of Politics). With both Turnbull and Pyne departing, the potential for a move of the Coalition to conservatism in greatly enhanced.

In today’s Herald Sun, commentators Andrew Bolt and Rita Panahi both argue that this situation may help the electoral position of the Coalition. Bolt argues that

“Malcolm Turnbull gone, Julie Bishop and Kelly O’Dwyer going, and now Christopher Pyne, too. Know what some Liberals call that? A good start. The election will do the rest. Check Sportsbet’s seat-by-seat odds. They tip that from the ruins of this Morrison Government after the May election will crawl a Liberal party where conservatives will again have the numbers and most of the talent. The Liberal Left has destroyed not just the party but itself, and that’s why some of its leaders are now deserting — and slamming the door in fury” (see attached Coalition May Become Conservative).

Of course, there is a lot of water to pass under the bridge before the election and Bolt acknowledges that Morrison himself is “ideologically flighty”. But Morrison has a much improved outlook if he can present himself as a leader who believes in the Menzian “small” government approach and who will spend more time attacking the policies being canvassed by Shorten.

Responses to Assessment of Treasury Life

During the time I was in Treasury (for 27 years until 1987) I naturally had several acquaintances with David Morgan who joined in 1980 at age 33 and left in 1990 to join Westpac. He did not work for me during that time but I became familiar with his economic and political views, although unlike some others I was not invited to his marriage to a Labor minister. His decision to have a book written about his life, titled David Morgan: An Extraordinary Life by an Oliver Brown and published at age 72, reflected his somewhat aggressive approach to letting the world know of his views. On 2-3 March the AFR published an article by Brown who says that at Westpac “he was given a brutal assessment of his management skills”.

The Australian’s Business journalist Richard Gluyas has also written about Morgan’s experiences and his article of 2-3 March is attached (see Gluyas on Morgan). That article however does not appear to provide a completely accurate picture of the then Secretary to the Treasury, John Stone. This has resulted in letters published by each of Stone and myself below.

Ros Kelly warning ‘did not happen’

Letters Published in The Australian, John Stone, Des Moore, 12:00AM March 4, 2019

8 Comments

I refer to Richard Gluyas’s Business Review article (“How a banker’s life lessons were forged”, 2-3/3) regarding David Morgan’s biography. In the article Morgan is quoted from the book as saying: “Over drinks one Friday night in Canberra, before (Morgan) married (Ros) Kelly in 1983, the arch-conservative then-Treasury secretary John Stone scowled at Morgan: ‘If you marry that woman, you will never be secretary to the Treasury’.” That is untrue.

I would never have said such a thing about Ros Kelly, nor would I have thought of Morgan (then a relatively junior officer) as a possible future secretary to the Treasury. My subsequent invitation (which I accepted) to attend their wedding renders the allegation even more bizarre.

I have known Morgan for 47 years. His intellectual abilities have never been in doubt. It was for an entirely different reason, when he asked some time ago that the author of his then planned biography might speak to me, that I declined.

John Stone, Lane Cove, NSW

In his commentary on David Morgan’s book on his own life, Richard Gluyas writes that “after an early career at the International Monetary Fund”, Morgan switched over to Treasury where he formed a tight bond with fellow thinkers who allegedly “marginalised” Treasury secretary John Stone, who “then exited Treasury”.

I have not read this book but am puzzled by this assertion.

As a deputy secretary Treasury at the time Stone resigned in 1984, I was in close contact with him at that time and I do not recall him attributing his resignation to any pressure from within Treasury. To the contrary.

Regarding the exchange rate float in 1983, Paul Keating’s concerns later of the danger of us becoming a banana republic suggest Stone correctly advised implementing other regulatory and policy changes with the float.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Ispos Poll Shows Big Improvement in Coaliton Polling

Des Moore — Mon, 18 Feb 2019 08:57:19 +0000

Has the Tide Really Turned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Electricity Prices be Reduced?

Des Moore — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:14:43 +0000

Will Electricity Prices Be Allowed by Governments to Fall?

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

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

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

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

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

US Defence & Immigration Policies; US/China Trade; OZ Energy Policy

Des Moore — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 04:57:09 +0000

Where Does US Defence Policy Stand Now

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

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

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

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

Who Will Break the Deadlock on Mexican Wall?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Trade With China

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

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

Energy Policy

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

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

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

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

Questioning Continues Regarding Effects on Pricing under NEG

Des Moore — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:49:53 +0000

Questioning Continues Regarding Effects on Pricing Under NEG

Today’s Australian reports that the views of three groups in the Senate appear to depend on whether and/or by how much the supposed final version of NEG will reduce costs. Pauline Hanson says she is “strongly against” the NEG and wants to pull out of the Paris accord requiring reduced carbon emissions as coal-fired power stations would deliver cheaper power. Senator Leyonhjelm, the Liberal Democrat, said he wanted to see evidence the NEG would dramatically lower power prices before he would back the deal: “they need to fall by at least 50 per cent to restore competitiveness and take pressure off households”. The Centre Alliance’s Rex Patrick said he and Senate colleague Stirling Griff backed the NEG’s goals but their vote would depend on how much the policy brought down power bills: “we would expect on the pricing side for there to be a clear indication of what the savings will be, and that the modelling that generates those savings is released publicly, including all assumptions that were made,” Senator Patrick said (see Some Senate Opposition to NEG).

Given the virtually certain Labor opposition to NEG, this means the government would find it difficult to have it passed in the Senate.

Both The Australian and the AFR have also published letters expressing doubts about the cost effects of NEG. My letters in each of these papers are set out below.

It’s Difficult to See How Wind Will Bring Down Prices

Letter Published in The Australian, 27 July (Last para deleted by Ed)

You report the Energy Security Board’s claim that modeling of the final national energy guarantee shows that its adoption would result in savings of electricity bill to households of $550 a year over a decade (“Power price warning to Labor states”, 26/7)

Indeed it appears that under this NEG, wholesale prices are modeled to fall by over 40 per cent by 2021. A significant contributor to this fall is supposedly due to a large increase in investments in renewable (mainly wind)already committed.

However, no indication is given of how the more costly wind farms will cause such falls in prices. Perhaps the NEG will provide a government guaranteed price, with governments funding the additional cost compared with coal. That additional cost would have to include the additional investment in back-ups which would be needed when the wind or sun do not provide fuel.

[The debate surrounding NEG has reached the point of farce. Some ‘expert’ (sic) has a model which says a more costly investment in energy production will compete coal producers out of existence despite the latter’s much lower prices. Will anyone believe in such a model?]

Des Moore

Something Doesn’t Add Up in Energy Modeling

Letter published in AFR, 27 July 201

You report the Energy Security Board’s claim that modeling of the “final” NEG shows that its adoption would result in large savings of electricity bills to households. Indeed it appears that under this NEG, wholesale prices are modeled to fall by more than 40 per cent by 2021. A big contributor to this fall is supposedly due to a large increase in investments in renewable (mainly wind) which are already committed.

However, no indication is given of how the more costly wind farms will cause such falls in prices. Perhaps the NEG will provide a government guaranteed price, with governments funding the additional cost compared with coal. That additional cost would have to include of course the additional investment in back-ups which would be needed when the wind or sun do not provide fuel.

Those who have followed the debate on NEG will be interested to ascertain how a more costly investment is modeled to produce lower prices

Des Moore, South Yarra

Stone Criticises Paul Kelly’s Views on Trump

Although not directly related to climate change policy, John Stone has an article in today’s Spectator which takes to task Paul Kelly’s view on Trump (see Stone’s Critique of Paul Kelly on Trump). Stone rightly says that Kelly has conveyed a false perspective on Trump and that this perspective has wrongly influenced Australian conservatives and their attacks on government policies.

One of the issues on which Stone criticizes Kelly is climate change and Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord. Kelly argues that it has been an elemental mistake by our conservatives to wish that our government follow suit because “they forget what Trump’s alternative and incoherent ‘big picture’ means for America and the world”. But, in fact, Stone says, Americans “see Trump’s actions (as having) already transformed America into a far better place than that to which Barack Obama and his immediate three predecessors had reduced it.”

Such criticisms also apply to all too many other Australian journalists and their failure to see through government policies which purport to improve our lifestyle but in practice make us worse off unnecessarily . This is very much the case with climate change and the cost of government policies designed to reduce our usage of fossil fuels.

Frydenberg Gets Help with NEG O’Seas

Des Moore — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 12:45:27 +0000

Did Turnbull Get Frydenberg to Canvass Overseas the NEG Policy of Reducing Carbon Emissions?

Today’s AFR reports it had an exclusive interview with the executive director of the International Energy Agency, Faith Birol, about the Turnbull/Frydenberg NEG policy (I have highlighted the major points made). This appears to follow Frydenberg’s private meeting with Birol purporting to explain NEG and a speech to diplomats and energy policy makers at IEA’s Paris HQ. He also claims to have briefed “key” Trump officials and chairs of US energy committees in Washington.

The attempt to obtain a tick (or at least a “no problems” response) from overseas is an attempt to persuade the States to also give NEG approval when they meet next month. But it is also, of course, an attempt to get approval from both the National Party and the party room, where Abbott and some others oppose NEG and support the withdrawal from the Paris accord. As I pointed out in my previous Commentary, some journalist experts have also opposed NEG and some have supported withdrawal from Paris. It seems likely that Turnbull has used Frydenberg to “explain” the policy overseas and report back that it is favourably received.

One question which arises is the credibility of Birol. As indicated here, he became head of IEA in 2015 and his predecessor (a former Dutch Minister) had built a reputation of providing accurate estimates of energy supplies in a relatively neutral policy context. Former Turkish economist Birol has, however, a reputation of supporting action to reduce carbon emissions and substituting renewable. In fact, the AFR’s report below quotes Birol as referring to “a report by the IEA to be released this week showing investment in renewable energy was slowing”. “Political uncertainty is the number one enemy of renewable energy investment and this approach in the National Energy Guarantee brings predictability and certainty,” he said.

In short, an interview by Frydenberg with Birol was bound to result in him approving NEG and its basic objective of establishing an electricity policy which supports the Turnbull government’s carbon emissions reduction policy.

Interestingly, Resources Minister Canavan of the National Party is quoted as saying that, while he supports the usage of coal, he and his party colleagues don’t believe in mandating action for it’s use. He also warns that policy should not “put all our dice, all of our eggs in the basket of potential improvements in batteries or renewables,” he said. “That might happen but that approach would effectively, like going to the casino and saying ‘Let’s put it all on black and see how we go.’”

This, of course, is what the Turnbull government is proposing.

Polling and Electricity Prices

Des Moore — Mon, 09 Jul 2018 02:38:39 +0000

Polling Gone Mad

Today we have been “flooded” by opinion polls which, while not showing any overall deterioration in the Turnbull Coalition’s polling, confirm its continued inability to effect any significant improvement in that polling. The state by state Newspoll for the February-March quarter also suggests there is a continued problem in Queensland, where the One Nation vote is much higher than in other states and has increased significantly since the 2016 election result (from 5.5 to 13 percent in the February- March quarter).

Because this state by state Newspoll only covers to the end of March it needs to treated with more than the usual reservation about polling. However, while it shows a slight increase on the previous quarter’s 46/54, the Coalition’s polling of 47/53 for the February-March on a TPP basis does not let the Coalition off the need to radically change its leadership and policies (the Australian’s political editor, Simon Benson, mistakenly had the Coalition at 48/52).The poll remains well below its 2016 election result of 50.4/49.6 and suggests that there will not be an early election. The slight improvement in Turnbull’s net satisfaction rate (to minus 20) may help but no change was recorded in his better PM rate of 40 (Shorten on 34).

Although the Coalition polling improved significantly in Queensland (from 45/55 to 49/51), that was way down on its election result of 54/46 and suggests an increased threat of seat loss in that state. But it has reportedly reached an agreement on preferences with One Nation, which should help but may require some agreement on energy policy and a difficulty with implementing the NEG. My recollection is that then LNP leader in Queensland did not have a preference deal with One Nation in his (lost) State election.

A separate Fairfax/Ipso poll for the first quarter of 2018 suggests that at 53/47 Labor is also ahead on the same basis as Newspoll. But by contrast with Newspoll, it shows Labor ahead in Queensland by 52/48. This has led the AFR’s left political editor to suggest Labor could win up to 16 seats from the Coalition, including the seat of Home Affairs minister Dutton. But the AFR has become so left-wing that this opinion needs to be questioned.

Another separate poll in Victoria, where there is a State election in November, also shows Coalition problems with Labor which could carry over to the Federal election. The poll shows Labor ahead on a 51/49 TPP basis. However, low primary votes of 35.4 for Labor compared with 39.4 for the Coalition suggest uncertainty at this stage about exactly how preferences will be allocated. In that regard, it is the first time One Nation will participate in Victoria since 1999 and it got a 3.6 per cent primary vote in the poll. Also, the Coalition is well ahead (55.8% compared with 44.2%) on which party is judged best to maintain law and order. Against that, the Victorian media is pro Labor.

Electricity Prices

There is no doubt that a major cause of the poor Coalition polling outlined above reflects the failure of Turnbull and Energy minister Frydenberg to explain the causes of the increase in electricity prices and how the new proposal to supposedly handle energy policy will work in practice to get prices down. The address by Tony Abbott drew attention to the latter issue, which is increasingly concerning voters particularly those on lower incomes.

Turnbull is now close to a panic situation and his latest response is not only to claim that prices have already started to come down but that he has in effect commissioned the ACCC to publish on what has happened and what will happen. Today he is reported as stating that “an “illuminating” Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report on the electricity sector will be released this week and the same (but separate) report suggests that a Royal Commission might be established on whether prices are determined in a competitive framework (see Possible RC on Electricity Prices).

The attached report has Turnbull claiming “We’ve turned the corner on electricity prices,” Mr Turnbull told reporters at Avebury Mine, in the north-west Tasmanian seat of Braddon on Monday. “You’ve seen price reductions across the east coast as a result of the policies of my government.” Mr Turnbull pointed to measures to push down gas prices by moving to restrict exports and its own National Energy Guarantee as proof of action. “The NEG will provide a level playing-field, technology agnostic, certain environment for people to invest and deliver lower cost for generation over time,” he said.

I am hoping to publish an analysis on prices but there is no doubt that it has become a major policy issue which Turnbull had tried to hide by claiming that “experts” will solve the problem by constructing a NEG. As I and others have already suggested, this is not the case (and the forced reduction in gas prices is not relevant to NEG). The fact that Turnbull felt is necessary today to say something about it, rather than his No2 Frydenberg, suggests he has at least realized that this is a problem which cannot easily be hidden away in a NEG which is likely to involve higher prices.

It seems unlikely that his colleagues have realized that it may be necessary to abandon the NEG approach in order to improve the Coalition’s polling. Turnbull himself has a reputation for wanting to split the Liberal Party and may not be too concerned if he presides over a Coalition loss. Time to go now rather than at an election.