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.

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Today’s article by The Australian’s political editor Dennis Shanahan argues that Morrison still has a last chance and points out that “in late 1992 and early 1993, the Keating government hopelessly trailed John Hewson’s opposition. In February 1993, the Coalition led Labor 53.5 to 46.5 on a two-party-preferred basis in Newspoll.On election day, March 13, Labor pipped the Coalition 51.4 per cent to 48.6 per cent and Keating remained prime minister. The key to this dramatic turnaround was that voters became wary of Hewson and his radical tax plans” (see Last Chance – Can Morrison do a Keating?).

There are other last chancer wins, in politics and elsewhere.

In the UK, after Thatcher’s “resignation” John Major became PM and Leader of the Conservative party from 1990 to 1997.  But with the Conservatives consistently behind in polls, and despite repeated calls for an immediate general election after he became Prime Minister, it wasn’t until April 1992 that he called an election. Major then took his campaign onto the streets, famously delivering many addresses from an upturned soapbox, and winning the election with the  then highest popular vote ever recorded but a (much-reduced) majority of 21 seats, the fourth consecutive victory for the party. During his period in office Major sacked Chancellor of Exchequer Lamont and Major’s  attempt to stave off critics calling for an election was famously headlined in May 1995 in The Independent as “John Major’s Last Chance Saloon”.

Morrison has a bigger polling gap than Keating and (probably) than Major. And he has had to cope with Turnbull attempting to undermine the Liberal party. But it now appears that Turnbull has lost much of his capacity to influence “moderates”. His closest colleague, Craig Laundy, is telling him to go quiet (see Laundy Tells Turnbull to Shut Up), and Morrison’s success in having climate sceptic Craig Kelly pre-selected for the next election scheduled in May (I incorrectly said March a couple of weeks ago), considerably reduce Turnbull’s role of influence. Like Lamont under Major there may now have been a de-facto sacking of Turnbull under Morrison.

Andrew Bolt argues that “don’t think he’s finished with the Liberals. This war is to the knife”, ie Turnbull is another last chancer. But he acknowledges that Turnbull is losing support from moderates such as Nick Greiner, who he (Turnbull) had nominated to be Federal President (see Bolt on Turnbull’s History).Reports elsewhere also suggest that moderates may have given up Turnbull.

I have argued that Morrison should make a statement which, in effect, says that Turnbull’s policies are not his (Morrison’s) policies. But he still has a good way to go with modifying his energy policy alone. His latest comment has been made about Queensland’s state owned power companies and the dividend “stripping” that state has been doing (see PM waves ‘Big Stick’ at Energy Giants). Morrison’s confinement of his comment to a state-owned power company might indicate that he has started to recognise that the difficulty of reducing electricity prices requires, as a start, modifying federal policies on emissions/renewables. Whatever, much still needs to be done to allow reduced prices.

A start could be made by linking a modification of Australia’s emissions/renewables targets to the failure of countries to stop emissions from rising, let alone reducing them. The Australian’s Environment Editor says that “a major report by the Global Carbon Project has found emissions were expected to rise by 2.7 per cent this year following a rise of 1.6 per cent last year after a three-year hiatus. The report, published in the journals Nature, Earth System ­Science Data and Environmental Research Letters, says emissions remain a long way from peaking, with coal use in China locked in for decades to come” (see Trend in Emissions). The bodies quoted are ones sympathetic to the dangerous warming thesis.

Morrison’s “win” this afternoon over Shorten, even with a minority government in the Lower House, in procedural changes in Parliament’s handling of two pieces of legislation should encourage him to effect changes in policies too.

Much of yesterday’s political/media exchanges were about the role Malcolm Turnbull has been playing recently in trying to undermine the Liberal Party and, now, its new leader Scott Morrison. Today’s  Australian reports numerous commentaries all of which are unfavourable to Turnbull and include the view of political editor,  Dennis Shanahan, that he should have been sacked after the 2016 election which reduced the Coalition’s majority to one – “To borrow Turnbull’s own words, the Liberals simply left “his arse” for too long on the seat of C1 — the prime ministerial commonwealth car “(see Turnbull Should Have Gone Earlier).

In reality even News Ltd failed to identify the problems created by Liberal party members in electing Turnbull as leader well before the 2016 election. Numerous commentators, including the NSW Jim Simpson group, John Stone and self had drawn attention well before 2016 to Turnbull’s principal objective being himself and the absence of values consistent with Liberal party objectives. Attention had also been drawn to Turnbull’s attempt to first join the Labor party.

This was referred to last night on the Bolt show when Stephen Conroy (former federal Labor minister) observed that John Della Bosca (former NSW Labor minister) had “saved” the Labor party by knocking back Turnbull’s offer to lead Labor. I assume that DB then had some organisational authority in Labor.

Bolt refers to a number of Turnbull’s characteristics and asks – “Can anyone at all still doubt that Turnbull simply wants the Liberals to be destroyed, and is doing all he can to ensure it is?” (see Bolt on Turnbull). I note that Bolt is obviously concerned that, in his current mood, Turnbull may sue for defamation. That concern seems reflected in his use of the word “frank” when another word might have been more appropriate.

One of The Australian’s journalists also writes that “Malcolm Turnbull finds himself isolated from the Liberal Party’s most influential powerbrokers and senior MPs after his attempt to embarrass the Prime Minister failed. The ousted prime minister was scorned by Liberals yesterday — including moderates — in the wake of his brazen bid to block Scott Morrison over pre-selections and try to force an early election” (see Turnbull Loses Support).

One hopes so. But the only sure way of getting rid of him would be for Morrison to make a statement saying that Turnbull is no longer PM and that the policies he enunciated are being reviewed (or words to that effect). This applies particularly to Turnbull’s energy policy, which has been slightly changed but which the basic thesis remains and which the Morrison government intends to legislate to allow the big stick to be used to force the relevant companies to lower electricity prices. The one concession (sic) announced today is to provide that the ultimate decider will be the Federal Court not the Minister. But, as I have said previously, a much greater modification needs to be taken.

There is no doubt that this failure largely reflects the views of Turnbull, who first tried to be head Labor but was rejected there and, despite his leftish views, was accepted as a member of the Liberals. Then, after his second period as leader and then obtaining the PM position since 2015 after defeating Tony Abbott in an internal challenge, Turnbull himself was defeated in a internal contest by Morrison in August which actually arose from a challenge to Turnbull by Dutton. In effect, that challenge indicated that a majority of the party had reached the conclusion that, after a sequence of negative polling throughout his PM-ship, Turnbull’s views would not be accepted by the electorate at the federal election.

I have written in previous Commentary that since taking over Morrison has either not outlined his views on most major policy issues or outlined them only half-heartedly. This has kept the Coalition’s polling at low rates and uncertainty about what the Coalition stands for. Moreover, Turnbull continues to attempt to influence policies and individual MP’s attitudes on particular issues. This has led to suggestions that he should be expelled from the party and there appears to be a basis for doing that  (see Turnbull to be Expelled? and Turnbull v Liberal Party). As Andrew Bolt argues, “It’s not just that Turnbull is angry with the Liberals for doing, in his opinion, the wrong thing in dumping him. Psychologically he badly needs the Liberals to now lose to prove to himself that he was right and good and loved (see Bolt on Liberal Party & Turnbull).

It appears however that Morrison has now realised that, for the Coalition to defeat Labor under Shorten, he must return to emphasising the traditional important elements in an election, such as the budget (see attached Morrison v Shorten).  As David Uren points out, “the Coalition managed to restrain spending under the tight rein of finance minister Mathias Cormann with growth of about 2 per cent above inflation, despite the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and increased defence spending. The revenue turnaround began in the second half of last year and has gathered pace. Company tax revenue was boosted by a surprise leap in coal and iron ore prices while business profits elsewhere in the economy strengthened. Deloitte Access Economics tips company taxes will reach almost $100bn this year. Capital gains tax revenue is also coming back. Treasury now finds its forecasts are unduly pessimistic” (see Budget Outlook).

However, for Morrison to improve polling and stand a chance at next year’s election he must do two things:

• Make a public statement saying that, while he recognises that Turnbull attempted to attract votes through the policies he pursued, he is no longer PM and those policies need to adjusted to the new political environment;
• Indicate also that an energy policy based on NEG is no longer acceptable (Morrison has already stated this) and that the Morrison government will modify its emissions/renewables polices so as to ensure that it establishes a situation where electricity prices will fall.

But at the moment it looks highly unlikely that he will make the necessary changes to energy policy to allow prices to fall. As pointed out by David Uren the policy apparently being pursued for consideration by party members next week reflects “surely none as bewildering as a Coalition leadership deciding the solution is to give the Treasurer unfettered powers to force the break-up of private corporations, dictate their prices and order them to enter contracts against their will” (see Uren on Energy Policy). This would be a disaster in effecting the de-facto nationalization of the electricity industry and as such would likely lead to lower polling.

One final word. The attempt by some female politicians in Canberra, including one minister, to suggest that the Liberal Party is treating women badly does not stand up to careful consideration. Their failure to nominate any supposed offenders indicates the accusers have allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by the emergence of increased feminism. They also appear to overlook that politics involves exchanges which will, in some cases, cause offence – as it does with exchanges between men (see also Bolt on Liberals Problems on Women)

Not surprisingly there has been no response to my suggestion in yesterday’s Commentary that Victorian Attorney General Pakula should resign because he falsely  told Victorians that the Victorian police had not received information from Federal agencies indicating that Shire Ali was a jihadist. Now, we also know that, for six days, Victorian Premier Andrews “kept to himself the fact that Shire Ali … had actually been out on bail” (see Bolt on Muslim Immigrants).

This mishandling by Victorian ministers and police of the Shire Ali incident could have cost more than one life but fortunately they recognized the risk in time to arrest the three jihadists who had been planning for some months to attack a crowd in Melbourne. But the mishandling of Shire Ali case reflects the generally poor administration by Victorian Labor as outlined in today’s Herald Sun (see Victoria Under Andrews).

Opposition leader Matthew Guy did not take full advantage of this poor administration when he debated Andrews last night at a public forum (the only one of such happenings during the election) and, in particular, he should have made more use of the mishandling of the Shire Ali incident and the gangs of Sudanese.  There are more examples quoted in the above piece by Bolt, who suggests that “Victoria takes the cake”.

The most encouraging development in handling terrorism is this morning’s report that “the Morrison government is preparing to strip extremists of their Australian citizenship if they are entitled to acquire a foreign one based on where they, their parents or even their grandparents were born. The plan to deport terrorists who are solely Australian citizens is also understood to have been discussed at the high-level ­National Security Committee of Cabinet and the indication that the government is also planning to announce strong new laws around dual-national terrorists living in Australia. The current legislation is unworkable because it requires an extremist to have been convicted of a terror offence with a sentence of six years or more before they can be booted out of the country” (see Possible Additions to Anti-Terrorist Legislation). Some more details are in Terrorist Laws to be Tightened before Xmas.

If the changed laws can be passed by Parliament before Christmas, it will be the most important action taken since the Morrison government started and may indicate that Morrison is more clearly separating himself from Turnbull, who is reported as taking action to try to prevent Abbott from standing in his electorate and generally undermining the Liberal party. It appears that several branches of the Liberal Party in NSW favour expelling Turnbull from the party (see Turnbull Sabotages Libs). Such action would not be supported by Morrison, and would pose difficulties for the so-called moderate section of the party, but  Turnbull’s views will have a much reduced influence.

Energy Policy

Meantime there are signs that the Morrison government may be prepared to modify its climate change policy in response to Shorten’s announcement of Labor’s energy policy. It is reported that Morrison “lashed out at Mr Shorten’s energy policy, which promises to put $15 billion into fixing the national energy network and subsidising solar storage batteries for 100,000 households”. Dutton has also joined the offensive against Labor’s planned $2000 handout for home battery installations, invoking Kevin Rudd’s botched home insulation scheme and the “Cash for Clunkers” program this morning as he dismissed Mr Shorten’s plan. “This pink batteries debacle is like the Cash for Clunkers,” he told 2GB, “These people just don’t learn the lesson.” (see Labor’s Energy Policy on Batteries).

If the Coalition can at least modify its present emissions reduction policy as part of an attack on Labor’s policy, that could also improve its polling. The fact that Dutton has joined the attack, which would not have happened under Turnbull’s leadership, is promising.