Institute for Private Enterprise » Andrew Bolt

Uncertainty in Labor’s Policies; Islamic Threat

Des Moore — Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:48:13 +0000

What Are Labor’s Policies?

Today’s Australian has published considerable material on the failure of Labor to clearly enunciate its policies. I have previously drawn particular attention to Labor’s failure to publish aggregates alternative to those in the Coalition’s budget and to costings for the economy of its global warming policy. This defect remains.

But the recent emergence of many questions about Labor’s policies on specific policy issues has opened the way for much wider challenges to be made. The opening up of this area should also allow Morrison to reduce his announcements of funding small projects, which appear too much as vote buying, and focus more on attacking Shorten. It has also led The Australian to inter alia run the main letters column today with the heading Uncertainty Surrounds Labor’s Announced Policies. I was fortunate in having my epistle included as “lead letter” – as set out below.

Uncertainty Surrounds Labor’s Announced Policies

Letter Published in The Australian, April 25, 2019 (Bits in square brackets omitted by Ed).

Those closely following the election had been expecting that after Easter Labor would publish proposed budget aggregates and their costings – just as the Coalition did in its budget. No such luck. What we are getting are reports that material distributed by some Labor candidates omit to mention Shorten is their leader.

This may reflect the failure of Labor to decide [internally] on detailing the reasons for some of its decisions. Take the decision to require half of new vehicles to be electric by 2030.

It now appears that the recording of high electric sales in Norway [(much tinier than Australia)] may be due [importantly] to a near 100 per cent sales tax there on non-electric cars. Would Labor provide that “incentive” here?

Then there is the proposed Adani coal mine, for which the Coalition has given approval to all legal federal requirements.

But despite having said that he is being “governed by the law”, Shorten is not prepared to accept such approvals. Instead, he says this proposed investment by an Indian company is a matter for the Queensland government. Does this mean that Labor would cease to have the federal government determine foreign investment policy?

The foregoing are not the only Labor policy issues which are uncertain. Decision time has surely arrived.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

I also include in this Commentary some very brief references to recent commentaries on some other specific issues, viz

After humming and hawing Shorten now says he would not review environmental decisions made by the Coalition. Yet at the same time Labor would not sign the “pledge” by the largest union, the CFMEU, tosupport the coalmining industry and, in implied support for the proposed Adani mine, for “coalmining developments that meet regulatory requirements”. Contrary to Shorten, some Labor candidates say they would leave the question of reviews open (see Shorten Says No Adani Review);
Shorten leaves open the possibility of tax reductions for those on high incomes (see this article);
Wong (Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) refuses to answer questions on the Australia-US alliance, Taiwan and refugees (see this article);
GetUp has removed its extraordinary ad denying (in effect) that Abbott is a surf life saver and, while agreeing with the removal, Abbott’s main challenger (Stegall) amazingly denies she has any connection with GetUp (see this article);
How can Shorten’s promise to alleviate the cost of living be met with the latest zero increase in the cost (see this article)?

The other two attachments reflect, firstly, the differences of view about the role of Muslims in the Sri Lankan bombings and the over 300 killings . As Andrew Bolt points out, it has exposed a general refusal of the political left to openly “admit” that one Islamic aim is to eliminate Christians, which is now certain in the case of the Sri Lankan killings. Of particular interest is the possibility that the SK killings are a revenge for the killings of Muslims in Christchurch New Zealand. Bolt’s analysis is revealing in identifying prominent politicians, including Obama and Hilary Clinton, who have refused to even acknowledge that the death of Christians has been the aim (see Bolt on Denials of Muslims in Sri Lankan).

The second attachment outlines the extent of persecution of Christians and the widespread failure of believers in Christianity to do much about it. The author is Bill Muelenberg who is an expert in Jihadism and who worked in the Institute of Public Affairs when I was also there. He points out that “there have been 34,891 deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. That occurred 6,431 days ago. So we are now averaging five and a half such attacks each day since then. It is getting worse”(see attached Sri Lanka, Jihadist Massacres, and Western Denial).

In an earlier Commentary I have also written about Mark Durie who has written a new book, THE QUR’AN AND ITS BIBLICAL REFLEXES, which convincingly argues that the Koran requires Muslims to kill non-Muslims.

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.

Border Controls; Early Election Now Likely

Des Moore — Thu, 14 Feb 2019 01:11:34 +0000

Morrison Says No Early Election – But For How Long Can He Run A Minority Government

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Policy

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

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

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

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

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.

Dutton Exposes Turnbull

Des Moore — Sun, 30 Dec 2018 06:31:13 +0000

Dutton Exposes Turnbull Problem

While in August Dutton challenged Turnbull for the leadership, he did not really spell out the reasons for doing so and, when Morrison succeeded in his challenge for leadership, Dutton did not continue as minister for immigration but stayed as Minister for Home Affairs alone. But in today’s Herald Sun (and other News Ltd papers) he has now publicly exposed more of the reasons for his challenge (see Dutton on Turnbull 30/12).

This is clearly in response to the attempts by Turnbull to undermine the Morrison government by inter alia claiming through the media that as leader he would have succeeded in obtaining the Coalition’s return at the next election. Turnbull also continued to let people know that he strongly supported action on climate change.

In today’s article written by a journalist Dutton covered much more ground than any former Cabinet minister has done since Turnbull’s departure. In particular that the Coalition would have lost 25 seats under Turnbull and that he was all talk and little action. Further, that “the Liberal Party had become unrecognisable to our supporters. People who had voted for us for years had switched off. “Energy policy had effectively become the “greatest moral challenge of our time” and version after version just didn’t work. “Marginal seat members across the country believed we would lose the election and in the end MP’s couldn’t walk down the street without people saying you have to get rid of him. “People thought they had a good local member but wouldn’t vote for us whilst Malcolm was leader” ( I am reminded that in May last year I sat next to Dutton at a dinner in Parliament House and conveyed to him these same thoughts).

The surprise is that it took so long for Liberal members to take action to get rid of Turnbull. Dutton says that Turnbull effectively brought on his own fate after the Coalition lost the 38^th Newspoll. “I have no doubt Malcolm will rue the day he stormed in to the party room and declared the leadership open expecting to get a resounding vote. His low vote destroyed him without any challenge necessary. It was then only a matter of when, and he used every trick to delay the vote but it would have been untenable to leave Canberra that week without the leadership question being settled”.

Another surprise is that such revelations on Turnbull had not been made by Morrison. I have previously argued that Morrison needed to clear the decks from Turnbull’s imposed policies and, thereby, have created an opportunity to pronounce some genuinely liberal policies. Now that Dutton has done this to a significant extent Morrison should be able to enunciate policies which more widely distinguish today’s Coalition from Turnbull’s. Morrison has already modified energy policy but, as indicated in my 24 December Commentary, more could be done along the lines suggested in Andrew Bolt’s piece of the same date. My abbreviation of that follows:

Global warming is not happening as predicted. In fact, warming has slowed dramatically since last century, giving us lower temperatures than predicted by the vast majority of warming models.

Global warming is not causing more and worse cyclones. In fact, Australia has had fewer cyclones, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change this year admitted “numerous studies … have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy”.

Global warming is not causing more drought. In fact, rainfall in Australia has increased over the past century. The IPCC now admits it has “low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale”.

Polar bears are not becoming extinct. In fact, adjunct professor Susan Crockford estimates numbers jumped from 22,500 to 28,500 over a decade.

Global warming does not mean less food. In fact, grain crops in Australia and the world have set several records over the past decade.

Of course, there are risks in effecting such a change from Turnbullesque. This can be seen from the decision by Julia Banks to resign from the party because it had made that change (see Julia Banks Thinks Coalition Too Far Right). But that is the risk Morrison and his colleagues need to take if the Coalition is to have a chance at the election.

In addition to developing more coherent policies, as Chris Kenny points out the Coalition should use Shorten’s presentation at the National Labor Party Conference to portray the dangers from a Labor victory (see Kenny on Shorten). Kenny refers to “the core concern with Shorten — and it provides a complete contrast to the flaws we saw from his recent Labor and Liberal predecessors. Rudd, Gillard and Tony Abbott undercut their standing by breaking promises: Rudd promised to be an economic conservative but was the opposite; Gillard specifically ruled out a carbon tax, then snuck one in; Abbott promised to keep his promises, then broke his word, including by increasing personal income tax. By contrast, Shorten could wreak the most havoc by keeping his promises. He deserves credit for being upfront and honest about his intentions to increase taxes, increase spending and enact energy policies that will put upward pressure on energy prices (even if he does not concede this point), but the prescription could be highly damaging”.

Will it be a Happy New Year politically? Here’s hoping

CChange Silly Season; Shorten’s Danger Promises; Immigration Policies Changing

Des Moore — Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:09:37 +0000

Silly Season Arrives Early on “Dangers” From Fossil Fuels

Yesterday’s meeting of COAG confirm that discussions of energy policy between federal and state minister have reached the point when people do or say things that are not sensible or serious ie the silly season has arrived (it appears that the only area of agreement was in regard to retail reliability!). The Liberal Energy Minister in NSW, Don Harwin, who somehow acquired a BEc(Hons), advised COAG to aim for zero carbon emissions by 2050 even though his website says “coal will remain a vital source of energy”. To put it mildly, these two propositions conflict and Harwin was not even allowed to put a motion to the meeting.

True, Harwin did rightly say “climate change is a scientific fact”. But nothing was said on what causes climate changes to happen. Since the year 2000, temporary increases aside, global temperatures have been relatively stable despite the strong increase in carbon emissions staying in the atmosphere. Temperatures also remained stable in the post WW2 period to the late 1970s in the face of increasing emissions. The implies there is no substantive scientific correlation between increases in carbon emissions and temperatures.

In reality, the danger threat (sic) from usage of fossil fuels has lost credibility and policies aimed at reducing emissions should be re-examined . Australian governments should not continue policies to reduce emissions unless climate scientists can explain the periods of relative price stability in the face of increasing emissions.

As Judith Sloan points out, “one of the troubles with Harwin (and his Victorian counterpart, Lily D’Ambrosio) is their combined understanding of the energy market is measured in nanowatts; in other words, neither has a clue”. And “ Why would Harwin be worried about 2050 when NSW households have been hit with a rise of nearly $400 in their annual electricity bills over the past two years? Low-income households in NSW are now paying more than 10 per cent of their disposable incomes just to keep the lights on. It was surely ironic that in the same week as the conference, the wholesale price of electricity in the National Energy Market was soaring well above $100 a megawatt hour. Yet Harwin is more concerned about what’s going to happen in 31 years’ time” (see Sloan on Harwin)

As I have previously suggested, if Morrison moderated Australia’s emissions reduction targets in order to start reducing prices naturally, that would be a potential election winner in circumstances where Shorten’s target of a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030 would increase them.

Labor Policies Have Dangers

In an article today, Andrew Bolt argues that at Labor’s National Conference Shorten made promises which would be better NOT kept if he gains office. One is climate change which I deal with above. Bolt adds that “few realise those cuts don’t apply just to coal-fired power stations, but also to cars, trucks, planes, farms, factories, mines and even cattle and pigs, huge sources of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. That is crazy. Doing this, as the Chief Scientist admits, will make virtually no difference to the temperature” (see Bolt on Promises NOT to Keep).

Bolt’s other three “danger promises” by Shorten are a wind back in negative gearing on investment properties as house prices fall; a change in the constitution to create another parliament, an advisory one just for Aborigines, to advise the real parliament meant to represent us all; and increases in refugee immigrants and in grants to the UN to help resettle refugees in the region.

Shorten also said Labor would continue to support the turning the turning back of the boats and offshore detention. But the policy supported in the House’s last day of sitting to fast-track the transfer of asylum seekers to the mainland if assessed by two doctors (and with no ministerial intervention except on security grounds) has the potential to further increase migrants as “asylum seekers”. The national conference showed there is considerable pressure from Labor’s left wing to liberalise the admission of so-called refugees.

Immigration Policies Changing Overseas

Relevant here is the increased resistance to admitting refugees into European countries. Immigration policy is a major issue in the popular protests in France, where there is said to be between 200,000 and 400,000 illegal immigrants in a population of 67 million, which already includes an estimated 5.7 million people born in another country (see French Immigration Policy). In Belgium the Prime Minister has been forced to resign over a dispute on immigration policy (see Belgian PM Resigns on Immigration) and the protest movement across Europe includes an anti-migration component. In the US the Trump government, in conjunction with Mexico, has pledged $5.7 billion “toward development in Central America and Mexico, as part of a plan to strengthen economic growth in the region and curb illegal immigration” (see U.S. Aid to Mexico). In short, it seems that an increased resistance overseas to allowing refugees has developed, which has implications for Australia’s policy too.

Newspoll; Chief Scientist Finkel

Des Moore — Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:59:05 +0000

Newspoll Show No Improvement But Identifies Turnbull Problem

In yesterday’s Commentary I said that, while an early election as suggested by Terry McCrann would risk the Morrison government being portrayed as a “cut and run” attempt at winning and avoiding outstanding issues, it would have the potential to bring the Liberal party closer together and take advantage of various issues on which Morrison seems actually or potentially head of Shorten, including the now near absence of Turnbull as a policy maker. In particular, an election in March would “lock in” the likely favourable budgetary and economic forecasts in the MYEFO publication (next Monday) and prevent any significant change in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) which is made by Treasury before an election.

Today’s Newspoll shows no change in the Coalition’s Two-Party Preferred vote of 45/55 (the third time) but a slight decline in the assessment of Morrison’s own performance (higher are Less Satisfied and lower as Better PM). But the most important part of the poll is that dealing with the role of Turnbull, viz

40% of all voters assess him as DISLOYAL, with 56% of the Coalition doing so;
29% of all voters say he should be EXPELLED from the Liberal Party, with 36% of the Coalition. Interestingly, the highest proportion of those against expulsion was in Labor voters (64%). This might be taken as indicating that Labor wants to have Turnbull around as a Liberal party member.

The Australian’s political editor, Simon Benson, rightly describes Morrison as having a “titanic task” to turn the Coalition’s position around and says that Newspoll has “all but written it off” despite Morrison having delivered a “significant blow” against Shorten last week on border protection and national security. Benson does acknowledge however that the poor standing of the Coalition importantly reflects the disloyalty shown by Turnbull (see Benson on Turnbull. Note that the detail of Newspoll can be seen by clicking the sentence “mobile users click here to see PDF”which occurs after the Newspoll heading).

In previous Commentary I have argued that, since becoming PM in a party room vote, Morrison has been too slow in distancing himself from Turnbull. Now, with the Newspoll showing a majority of the Coalition assessing Turnbull as disloyal, it would be timely to make a statement which, in effect, says that the policies stated by Morrison are what the Coalition is now pursuing and, at the same time, provide a list of them.

This list would need to include as part of energy policy that it will aim to produce a major reduction in electricity prices: an emphasis on such a reduction could be an election winner if properly explained. It would also need to indicate that the idea of legislating to provide authority for directing electricity producers to set prices will be abandoned (if an early election was to be held there would of course be no opportunity to legislate). In addition, part of energy policy would be to indicate that the emissions reduction target set by Turnbull in Paris would be lowered to bring it more into line with what other countries are doing, viz lower than promised in Paris.

Bolt v Finkel

In an unusual step Chief Scientist Finkel, who was appointed by Turnbull, has accused leading journalist Andrew Bolt of wrongly interpreting his view on climate change. This was done by sending letters to various newspapers referring to opinion pieces by Andrew Bolt which they published and which “included a reference to me ‘admitting’ that we “could stop all Australia’s emissions – junk every car, shut every power station, put a cork in every cow – and the effect on the climate would still be ‘virtually nothing’”. Finkel wrote that “those are Andrew Bolt’s words, not mine, and they are a complete misrepresentation of my position. They suggest that we should do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions, a stance I reject, and I wish to correct the record” (see Finkel on Andrew Bolt).

Finkel’s letter includes an acknowledgement he had previously made at a Senate hearing, and which sceptics have frequently used, that the elimination of Australia’s 1.3% of total carbon emissions would have virtually no effect on climate. But in his letter he now adds that he “immediately continued by explaining that doing nothing is not a position that we can responsibly take because emissions reductions is a little bit like voting, in that if everyone took the attitude that their vote does not count and no-one voted, we would not have a democracy. Similarly, if all countries that have comparable carbon emissions took the position that they shouldn’t take action because their contribution to this global problem is insignificant, then nobody would act and the problem would continue to grow in scale”.

Bolt has now responded in an article in today’s Herald Sun and again on Sky News. In regard to Finkel’s statement that he “rejects the notion that we should do nothing to reduce emissions” Bolt says “actually, nowhere have I said or suggested that this was Finkel’s stance, even though it clearly should be. It is my stance. So there is nothing in my article to “correct”.

In regard to Finkel’s addition in the paragraph above, Bolt rightly says “Tosh”. I note that Finkel was not a climatologist: his CV says he is a neurologist, engineer, entrepreneur, philanthropist.