Institute for Private Enterprise » ASIO

Three More Terrorists; Fairfax/Ipso Poll; Immigration Policy

Des Moore — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:50:45 +0000

Serious Deficiencies In Security Revealed in Victoria

In my Commentary published on 18 November I suggested the handling of the Bourke St incident indicated serious deficiencies. This has been confirmed by developments since then.

Most important has been the statement by Victorian Attorney General Pakula that Victorian police had not received information from federal sources which would warrant them acting to at least monitor the now dead Muslim terrorist, Shire Ali. But Victorian police chief Ashton subsequently announced that they had in fact received the necessary federal information. This prompted me to send a letter to the press arguing that Pakula should resign but, as he has stuck to his guns and has been supported by Victorian Premier Andrews, that won’t happen a couple of days before the election (see OZ on Bourke St Terrorist Revelationsand Pakula Claims Not Informed of Terrorists Passport Withdrawal).

My letter was published in today’s Australian (see below) and the Herald Sun published a slightly different version

Fix terror tracking

The Australian, Letters, November 21

Following the killing of Sisto Malaspina by terrorist Hassan Khalif Shire Ali and the many questions about the performance of security, police services and Victorian ministers, three men have now been arrested over another alleged terrorist plot (“Melbourne terror raids: three men charged over plot designed for ‘maximum casualties’”, 20/11).

While the capacity of protective services to prevent terrorism is limited, it must be given top priority in monitoring suspects. But despite removal of his passport, and frequent attendance at Muslim prayer bodies, Shire Ali was not.

Information about potential activists must be fully exchanged between state and federal agencies and ministers. Despite the initial denial by Victorian Attorney-General Pakula (“ASIO, Home Affairs contradict Martin Pakula on Shire Ali’s passport”, 19/11), this now appears to have been the case. This avoidance of facts, and failure to stop Shire Ali, calls for the resignation of Pakula.

Most importantly, federal and state governments need to review what appear to be serious deficiencies in arrangements for preventing terrorist activity.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Debate on this incident will doubtless continue but public attention moved yesterday to the announcement by Victorian police that three Muslims had been arrested as terrorists. It appears that these three had been planning a shooting expedition into a large crowd and their planning had been followed by police for some months despite their use of encryptions (see Objectives of Three Terrorists). Note that they were influenced by“Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric who was killed in a drone attack and whose hate sermons inspired two of America’s worst terror attacks: the Pulse Nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida, and the San Bernardino shooting”.

The report also reveals that “Armagan Eriklioglu, the father of two brothers in the alleged terror cell, posted a link to a Turkish-language Islamic State Facebook –account”. He was not arrested yesterday and the report says he “is not suspected of being part of his sons’ alleged plans”, which seems surprising.

It is possible that this decision by Victorian police to arrest three was timed in order to demonstrate their efficiency (sic) after their poor performance in handling Shire Ali!

As to encryptions, Home Affairs Minister Dutton took the opportunity to call for “the Intelligence Committee today within the parliament to return their advice back to parliament very quickly because this is legislation the government needs to deal with very quickly,” he told reporters. “We have a bill before the parliament that provides the appropriate safety mechanisms, the privacy protections in place, but it allows police and ASIO to do their jobs in relation to these terrorist investigations”. “Mr Shorten has been opposed to this legislation but he needs to review his position as well. We are in a position of vulnerability” (see Dutton Seeks Shorten’s Support on Encryption).

Fairfax-Ipsos Poll Shows Increased Coalition Rating

The Fairfax/Ipsos poll for Nov 14-17 shows an increase in the Coalition’s rating to 48/52 TPP from 45/55 in Oct 10-13. At this level the Morrison government is at a higher rating than the Turnbull one was when he was deposed. But there is still a long way to go for the Coalition and Morrison’s personal performance rating fell to 48 per cent from 50 per cent and his preferred PM rating also fell by a percentage point to 47.

The poll also asked pollers about their views on Energy Policy and Immigrants from Muslim countries, viz

Main energy priority for Government is 47% for Reduce Household Bills cf with 39% for Reduce Emissions.This suggests that, once the cost of reducing emissions hits bank accounts, there is a tendency to reduce support for measures which add to living costs. If the Morrison government were to reduce the cost of emissions (and hence Household Bills) that would likely further reduce support for the mythical dangerous warming thesis.
For views on Immigrants from Muslim countries, 47% say they should be reduced (cf 45% in previous poll) compared with 35% who voted for them to stay the same (cf 29% in previous poll). Those favouring an increase fell from 23% to 14%. As this poll was taken before the Bourke St killing, it probably understates those who think Muslim immigrants should be reduced, as does the latest arrest of three Muslims. A more appropriate assessment would likely occur if the government were to publish an information paper on Muslim beliefs (see Fairfax-Ipso Poll Opposes Increased Muslims)

Immigration Statement by Morrison

In his so-called population speech on Monday, Morrison “floated the idea of reducing the permanent migration cap by about 30,000 people a year. This would bring the maximum permanent intake to the level to which it has fallen in the past year, despite the current cap being 190,000. The population plan will be discussed at the next meeting between state and federal governments on December 12” (see Possible Immigration Targets).

While Labor has indicated it may support a reduction, this is a disappointing response to the many commentators who have argued for a higher reduction figure and to the decision not being made by the Federal government, which should be the policy determinant.

However, Morrison is reported as saying that “Australia will refuse to sign up to the UN’s migration pact, which has already been rejected by the US and several European countries, on the grounds it would weaken border security and undermine the annual immigration program”. He took the position that the compact is

“contrary to the national interest and would be used against Australia by critics of its border policies”. “I’m not going to sign up to an agreement that I believe will only be used by those who have always tried to tear our stronger border policies down”… “I experienced this first-hand back when I was responsible for stopping the boats. We must always decide on these issues and not have our laws undermined by outside influences” … and has a “fundamental flaw” in failing “to distinguish between illegal and “proper” migration when it came to the provision of welfare benefits” (see Australia Not Signing UN Global Migrant Pact).

Hopefully, this decision may also lead to rejecting other global agreements, such as the Paris one on climate change which is clearly not in Australia’s interests. But his statements justifying our immigration policy also need to emphasize that, while reflecting the cultural basis of our society, it is non-discriminatory. As indicated in the recent report by the Centre of Independent Studies, the social cohesion objective is an important component of immigration policy (see CIS Report on Immigration).

Continued Concern on Islamic Threat

Des Moore — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:56:09 +0000

Continued Concern on Islamic Threat

As expected, more information is emerging about the activity of radicalised Muslims and their relationship with the Hume Islamic Centre. The most worrying development reported today about the Bourke St terrorist, Shire Ali, is that he was on bail when the killing occurred and had a record of getting away with breaking previous bails. This information would have been available to the Victorian government and to senior police. In those circumstances Shire Ali should have been at least closely watched but there have been no reports that he was. More details will be available tomorrow but there is no doubt that this will become a major issue in the imminent Victorian election.

Earlier today, the Fairfax press reported that the Hume centre is where (now known) terrorists have said they have attended and presumably participated in endorsing the message conveyed by the leader (this denied by the head, Sheik Omran). Now the centre is seeking to increase the number of attendees at peak periods to up to 500. Shire Ali, who killed the owner of the coffee shop in Bourke St, apparently attended the centre, although Omran denies this too – “Shire Ali, he never came here — or once in a blue moon.” Omran, who is head of the fundamentalist Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah Association, also makes the unbelievable claim that no radicalizations have occurred at the centre.

The only body responsible for approving or denying approval to expand seems to be the local Hume Council and the major question for considering expansion seems to be whether there would be enough car parking available in the surrounding area (see Islamic Centre Seeks Expansion). One would have thought that the Federal government should also have a say and should also be informed about any radicalizations. It is possible that Australian Federal Police/ASIO have infiltrated the centre but there should be publicly available information about the centre (and any other similar ones), just as there is for normal clubs et al.

The Australian reported today that “Islamic State-aligned groups have released fresh propaganda based on Friday’s terror attack in Bourke Street, as new data showed a high incidence of violent radicalism among Australians denied their passports by security agencies. Islamic State-linked Sunni Shield Media Foundation this week released posters with images of the Bourke Street attack, including one showing attacker Hassan Khalif Shire Ali attempting to stab a police officer. Another poster contained a photo of the utility that Shire Ali set alight during his fatal jihadi mission. ‘Australia, don’t think you are away from our attacks,’ the text on the poster read”.

OZ also reports that Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton yesterday condemned the propaganda (“This demonstration shows their evil minds at work,” he said. “We will continue our efforts to counter propaganda and gather intelligence to defeat the scourge”). Bill Shorten also did so, urging “internet providers and social media companies to remove any objectionable material which encourages terrorism.” The Opposition Leader said “We all have an obligation to ensure it is not disseminated further and doesn’t reach vulnerable young people.”

What this so-called propaganda seems aimed to do is not only to excuse the terrorist but also attract Muslims to radicalise. The phrase “Australia, don’t think you are away from our attacks” used above might be subject to legal action against the person responsible for making the poster. It certainly calls for a response from the body responsible for our national security – the federal government.

The Australian has also published a considerable number of letters expressing concern at what has happened and at the apparent influence of Islam. My letter was also published, albeit in a heavily edited form, and is set out below.

It’s Chilling to See Would-Be Killers Laughing in Court

Letter Published in The Australian, 16 Nov 2018 (Square bracketed bits deleted by Ed)

“PM Morrison should be applauded for his sensible statements on [Australia’s sixth deadly] the Islamic terrorist attack which occurred in Melbourne, as should your editorial in asserting that “Islamist terrorism must be confronted, not denied” (14/11). But with a Muslim community having [, surveys suggest,] a [not in] significant proportion who support the beliefs of Muhammad in the Koran, the question is what action might be taken to limit deadly attacks.

[First, the government should publish a paper providing to Australians the extent of the beliefs of Muhammad, why they are still accepted by some today, the extent of the threat to national security, and what action is being take to minimise the threat. It should include the views of leaders of our Islamic community but should also make clear that the problem is not with ‘extremists’ as such but with interpreters of the religion itself who believe in the killing of infidels including fellow Muslims.]

The government should in cooperation with the states enhance our deficient police and intelligent analysts and take steps to access the encrypted exchanges now hidden from detection. This should include the deportation of those attempting or advocating extremist action and should require mosques and prayer centres to provide special police forces with access to what is said at meetings. [As is happening now in European countries, additional funding should not be held back].

And Australia should seek agreement with other Judaeo-Christian countries to pursue such action on an international basis”.

The developments outlined above, and the widespread increased concern, call for a statement by the Federal Government on what additional protective measures it is considering and that it plans to publish an educative information paper about Islam .

Activism by Turnbull

Des Moore — Sun, 23 Jul 2017 03:58:39 +0000

Turnbull on the “loose”

As I experienced a bout of flu, I have had a “enforced” quiet period for a week (my last Commentary was on Monday 17 July). During that past week, however, it was impossible not to notice Turnbull being unusually active on a number of political fronts attempting to improve the Coalition’s — and his own– polling. My conclusion is that any improvement is unlikely: rather the opposite.

His most important decision was to announce a major change in Ministerial responsibilities which, he claims, implements a major reform and was presented as a “big” policy announcement. But, as discussed further below, it involves no reform and is designed more to combat the accusation that he has neglected the conservative side of the Coalition and to show Abbott and his cohorts that he (Turnbull) can do more than just debate possible major reforms, as he did before with possible tax reforms. Looking back, it seems likely that, while overseas at the G20 meeting (7-8 July) and an official visit to France and the UK shortly after, Turnbull was using discussions with various leaders to help develop an activist strategy designed to lift his appeal back home.

An obvious issue requiring attention was Turnbull’s climate policy and his response to the Finkel report, but his only public comment on such policy after returning from overseas was his 15 July address to the LNP convention in Brisbane. At that convention he said nothing about Finkel but told the assembly how important coal is. Interestingly, this was reportedly greeted with applause, but Turnbull has yet to give any hint as to just how important coal might be in his policy, if of any significance at all.

His proposal to establish a new Ministry of Home Affairs headed by Immigration Minister Dutton will maintain there the responsibility for immigration but will also assume responsibility for ASIO, Australian Federal Police and two other security/intelligence agencies. Despite claims that such a possible change has been under Turnbull’s consideration for some time, these announced changes lacked detail and will not become operative until early next year (assuming the needed legislative changes pass the Senate). Thus Turnbull’s Media Release concludes by saying:

“These reforms are significant and complex; they will take time to fully implement. Planning to implement the changes to the Australian Intelligence Community, the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio and the strengthening of the Attorney-General’s portfolio will be undertaken within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Attorney-General, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as Minister-designate for Home Affairs, and the Minister for Justice will work with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to develop these plans with a view to their implementation from early 2018” (see Turnbull Release on Home Affairs, 18 July).

On that very same day, the AFR reported that Turnbull’s activism had experienced difficulty at a private dinner in persuading senior businessmen to assist with Coalition funding. According to this report, “Malcolm Turnbull upbraided the business leaders for not helping out more with donations and generally not being more vocal in advocating the government’s agenda. This invited complaints from the corporate leaders that much of the government’s agenda was not friendly to them. One CEO listed as examples the imposition of the bank tax, the implementation of changes to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, or an effects test, an ongoing aversion towards substantial industrial relations reform, and even the decision to phase in company tax cuts over 10 years, putting big business last”. Note that “Mr Turnbull’s attempts to reforms energy policy were also discussed at length” (see Turnbull V Corporates).

Then, on 20 July The Australian reported Abbott as saying “the new ministry… was a ‘massive bureaucratic change’ and challenged the Mr Turnbull to reveal what advice he’s been given to support the new department. “The advice back then was that we didn’t need the kind of massive bureaucratic change which it seems the Prime Minister has in mind, and I can only assume that the advice has changed since then,” Mr Abbott told 2GB. “No doubt the Prime Minister will give us more information in due course about the official advice that he’s had on this.”

“Turnbull then hit back at Abbott’s claims that he was advised against a national security overhaul during his time as prime minister, saying he has received no objections to the home affairs super ministry from security agencies. He denied he received advice from agencies urging him not to go ahead with the super portfolio”. ‘No. The answer is I have not received objections from our agencies,’ Mr Turnbull told 3AW. ‘Again, the bottom line is that I’m the Prime Minister. I make these decisions’. “This is essentially a question of getting the national security architecture in the best shape to keep Australians safe. “We do not design these arrangements for bureaucratic convenience. We design them in order, we make changes always to optimise them so that our agencies can do a better job to keep Australians safe. That’s the objective.”

Also on 20 July, Andrew Bolt wrote “WHAT a scandal if Malcolm Turnbull has indeed given Peter Dutton control of all our big security agencies just to stay Prime Minister. That may seem a conspiracy theory, but Attorney-General George Brandis has given a joke of an excuse for this huge concentration of power. Turnbull has stripped Brandis of responsibility for the spy agency, ASIO, and given it to Dutton, the powerful conservative keeping Tony Abbott off Turnbull’s back. Dutton, now the Immigration Minister, will over the next year also get the Australian Federal Police and other security agencies to become the new Home Affairs Minister.

Brandis on Tuesday was made to publicly approve of the changes he’d privately resisted, and offered a humiliating self-criticism of the kind given by Chinese prisoners. Brandis suggested that losing ASIO was just what he deserved after neglecting our safety”. ‘Though my focus has been on national security, it has not been able to be an exclusive focus,’ he admitted. ‘There are always other things within the Attorney-General’s portfolio which also occupy my attention.’ But Dutton ‘can give 100 per cent of his time and his attention to national security’. “Which is false. Dutton is no more able to give national security ‘100 per cent of his time’ than was Brandis” (for full text of Bolt, see Bolt Explains Reasons For Home Affairs).

On 22 July, Paul Maley of The Australian claimed there has been no Cabinet agreement on the net merits of such changes. Indeed,” a picture is emerging of a rushed, shambolic process that critics across the government believe was driven by political expediency rather than good policy … some of the key ministers affected by the changes were not told of the Prime Minister’s decision to go with the idea, which had been under consideration for some time, until just a few days before Tuesday’s announcement” (see Turnbull’s Own Decision on Home Affairs, 22 July). If this report is correct, it would seem that Turnbull pushed the decision almost as a matter of desperation.

Greg Sheridan, who has probably more knowledge and contact with the workings of overseas intelligence agencies than any other journalist (or serious commentator on foreign policy), is extremely critical of Turnbull’s decision and suggests that “ The politics of this all have a long way to run”. He rightly concludes that while “Turnbull may well think he is shoring up his support in his party’s right wing. It’s a way of dealing with the Abbott problem without dealing with Abbott. But it looks too unstable and embodies such poor process that it is unlikely to be effective”. Sheridan also notes that

”Four structural factors make its re-election extremely difficult. First, there is the mathematics of its one-seat majority, Labor’s necessary gains are so small. Second, there is the disunity in the party, which is extremely unlikely to go away. Third, Labor will enjoy a huge funding advantage and a similar massive advantage from the de facto third-party endorsements of policy positions from all the quasi-government bodies it has created or staffed with people who share a centre-left world view, which the Coalition in government has done nothing to change. And finally, in our hyper-driven social media environment, six years of Coalition government will seem to the electorate like a lifetime” (see Sheridan on Home Affairs 22 July).

Conclusion

While Abbott raised a serious question about Turnbull’s decision to establish a Home Affairs Ministry, so too have many other commentators, most notably Greg Sheridan. Whatever the effect on Newspoll, that would have to be attributed to Turnbull himself. But Opinion Poll effects aside, the “initiative” by Turnbull must surely be interpreted as foolish and likely to add to the Coalition’s electoral problems. Sheridan’s comment that “it looks too unstable and embodies such poor process that it is unlikely to be effective” is a let off. It smacks of a leader who doesn’t know which way he is going but is trying desperately to survive as leader. That, after all, is Turnbull’s principal interest. As Henry Ergas wrote in Weekend Australian, it is somewhat ironic that Turnbull received a prize honouring a man (Disraeli) of whom it is said that “he never thought seriously of anything except his career” (see Ergas on Disraeli).

More Support for Reduced/Abolished Restriction on CO2 Emissions

Des Moore — Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:38:17 +0000

Energy Policy at Convention

I concluded yesterday’s Commentary by noting that, at the Liberal National Party State convention in Brisbane, Turnbull had told the attendees that “Those people who say coal and other fossil fuels have no future are delusional and they fly in the face of all of the economic forecasts”. This was reportedly greeted with applause by the crowd, who a day earlier had passed a resolution urging a future state LNP government to promote and support the coal industry.

Some other aspects arising at the convention are of interest in considering what response the Turnbull government might take in regard to the Finkel report proposals for reduced emissions of 50% by 2050 and increased usage of renewable energy of 42% by 2030 – but while supporting the coal industry? While the convention did vote down a resolution formally calling on the federal government to back out of the Paris Climate Accord, the AAP report says it was a “narrow” loss (it was apparently argued that if the resolution was passed it would put pressure on Turnbull to follow US President Donald Trump’s lead).

Also relevant is that, in his address to the convention, LNP Leader Tim Nicholls indicated that a major issue in the lead up to the election (which has to be held by end May 2018 and is being tipped as possibly being in this calendar year) would be the increase in electricity prices and the adoption of a renewable energy policy, for both of which he blamed State Labor. Both of these aspects have implications for what climate change policy will be adopted by Turnbull, whose policies can be said to have been a major cause of the price increases and the increased use of renewable.

Climate Policy Portrayed by AFR

Another development in the debate on climate policy is the publication of an article in the AFR by journalist Aaron Patrick reporting that the executive director of the IPA, John Roskam, told him that “The majority of federal Liberal MPs are not convinced the science behind climate change is settled and support reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases for political reasons”. He said “he hadn’t conducted a formal count but found most Liberal politicians shared his doubts about what many experts say is the greatest global threat to mankind” (see AFR Aaron Patrick on Sceptics on Climate Change).

According to Roskam, “More than 50 per cent are solid sceptics and more than 50 per cent feel they need to be seen to do something,” he said in an interview. “The science is not settled.”If correct, this is an important development in the policy debate. It is also important that a leading Fairfax journalist was allowed to have such an article pulished.

Patrick also reports that former PM Howard told a forum last Thursday that he was “never a paid-up enthusiast” and has “become increasingly more of a sceptic on climate change”.

Patrick has also reported an exchange I had with him during which I told him I had personally suggested to Turnbull that he was wrong on climate policy. Patrick correctly says that I had “a long discussion with Turnbull on climate policy many years ago in which he dismissed my view that human activity had not caused global warming and refused to examine several highly questionable aspects of the dangerous warming thesis.”

Patrick also suggests that Nic Cater, the Executive Director of the Menzies Research Centre, is “a climate sceptic and vociferous critic” of the IPCC.

OZ Says Civil War

The lead story in today’s Australian, headed ‘End civil war or Libs will lose’ indicates the seriousness of the problem facing the Coalition and includes the view by new Federal President Greiner that there must be a reconciliation between Turnbull and Abbott and that he would be happy to attend any meeting. But there is no recognition that the problem comes from the policies pursued by Turnbull being inconsistent with Liberal Party objectives and the fact that this is the main cause of the unfavourable polling. Turnbull is showing no sign of changing his position but is trying to persuade other Ministers to accept a new Home Office department headed by a conservative (Dutton) which would cover various agencies (such as ASIO) as well as Defence. Yet he has not been able to identify any serious problem with the present arrangements. Note also that LNP Leader Nicholls is said to have distanced himself from Turnbull (see OZ on Libs Civil War).

A realistic appreciation of the “civil war” is reflected in the article by Maurice Newman, who argues that

“Turnbull sought to remake his party’s founder, Sir Robert Menzies, in his own image. Turnbull argues that the Liberals were never a conservative party and that Menzies had purposely rejected traditional conservative politics because, at the time, “the authoritarian right had no appeal”. That’s intellectually disingenuous. Menzies abhorred all tyranny and was, at heart, a classical liberal. Indeed, Menzies’ views are clearly expressed in a 1974 letter lamenting that the “State executive is dominated by what we now call Liberals with a small l — that is to say who believe in nothing, but who believe in anything if they think it is worth a few votes. The whole thing is tragic.”

Menzies would have viewed Turnbull as fitting this description. Turnbull is fashionably left. He’s for big government and climate change. He’s drawn to identity politics and same-sex marriage, is pro-choice and a republican. Freedom of speech, he says, “will not build an extra road”. On fiscal policy, he argues “it’s better to be fair than in the black”. He supports generous welfare and high wages. He equivocates on IR reform and deregulation. If this is Turnbull’s “sensible centre”, it differs from Labor only at the margins (see attached Newman on Turnbull).

Conclusion

As I have already said, the only solution to the Civil War is for Turnbull to be replaced. If he is not, there will be adverse results for both the Federal and State parties.

ASIO & Fed Police Still Miss Sources of Terrorism

Des Moore — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 01:12:11 +0000

After I read on Tuesday evening that ASIO Head Lewis had said there is “absolutely no evidence” to suggest a link between the refugee intake and terrorism, I decided early yesterday morning to send a letter to The Australian expressing concern about this assertion and Lewis’s other reported assertion that he doesn’t “buy the notion the issue of Islamic extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim religion”. That letter has been published as the lead letter in today’s Australian, together with a number of others letters in similar vein (see below)

However, after I sent the letter to The Australian early on Wednesday morning, both the heads of ASIO and Federal Police (Colvin) sought to clarify publicly what they regard as the main sources of terrorism.

Lewis told ABC radio that the refugee program was not the source of terrorism in Australia. ‘The source is radical Sunni Islam,” he said. Asked about Man Haron Monis, who came to Australia on a business visa before successfully applying for asylum, as well as the case of Abdul Numan Haider and Farhad Jabar whose families came as refugees, Mr Lewis said: “In all of those cases they were not terrorists because they were refugees they were terrorists because of this warped violent extremist interpretation of Sunni Islam.”
Colvin told the National Press Club that the majority of persons of interest police deal with in terror investigations are first and second generation Australians. Regarding possible links between refugees and terrorism, he said he said “I absolutely concur” with what Lewis said and we can’t draw “direct cause and effect” between migration and terrorism. “What I can tell you, the majority of person of interests that come across my officers’ desks, are first and second generation Australians. These are people who are born, educated and raised in Australia. Yes, they may be from migrant families but that’s an extremely broad brush to paint in our landscape if that’s the lens we’re looking through. I think we have to be careful to draw absolutes in this discussion.” He said the main problem was “by and large” a radical interpretation of Sunni Islam.

Despite such “clarifications”, today’s editorial in The Australian’s rightly takes Lewis and relevant Ministers to task (see Australian on Lewis and note the comment that “This represents a timidity that is hard to fathom”), as does Andrew Bolt again (see Bolt on Lewis). Greg Sheridan also has an excellent short piece in The Australian pointing out that the Turnbull government “seems too often incapable of managing the politics of security” (see Sheridan on Security Policy).

Of course, some of us also have to experience the views expressed (or not) in Fairfax Press and on the ABC & SBS. Amazingly, I cannot find any reference in The Age to the comments by Lewis/Colvin and, despite the fact that it was ABC radio which interviewed Lewis, this morning’s ABC news also “forgot” (sic) to mention either of them ( a matter of the left hand not knowing what the other left hand was doing, perhaps!). The timidity occurs despite warnings of copy cat acts similar to Manchester and continuing terrorist acts, such as the death of an Australian girl in a Bangkok bombing, the death of Christian Coptics in Egypt and the extremists in Southern Philippines.

The reality is that, while refugees are not the source of terrorism, they are a major source both here and in overseas western countries because many are Muslims. Moreover, it is not only the refugees themselves who are a possible cause for concern: it is also the children they bring with them and/or who they bear after they arrive and the changes in laws or behaviour they make or seek once here. The attached article by a Pakistani journalist living in Germany (see Muslim Refugees) illustrates what can happen once a country accumulates a group of Muslims. Here is an extract from his piece:

“Newcomers soon start demanding privileges. They ask for gender segregation at work and in educational institutions; they ask for faith schools (madrasas), and demand an end to any criticism of their extremist practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM), forced marriages, child marriages and inciting hatred for other religions. They call any criticism “Islamophobia”. They seek to establish a parallel justice system such as sharia courts. They are also unlikely, on different pretexts, to support any anti-terror or anti-extremism programs. They seem to focus only on criticizing the policies of West.

It is now the responsibility of Western governments to curb this growing turbulence of religious fundamentalism. Western governments need to require “hardline” Muslims to follow the laws of the land. Extremists need to be stopped from driving civilization to a collision course before the freedoms, for which so many have worked so hard and sacrificed so much are — through indifference or political opportunism — completely abolished.

Terror attacks and other offshoots of Islamic extremism have created an atmosphere of mistrust between Europe’s natives and thousands of those who entered European countries to seek shelter.The situation is turning the Europeans against their own governments and against those advocating help for the war-torn migrants who have been arriving.Europeans are turning hostile towards the idea of freedom and peaceful coexistence; they have apparently been seeing newcomers as seeking exceptions to the rules and culture of West.

In an unprecedented shift in policy after public fury about security, the German government decided to shut down the mosque where the terrorist who rammed a truck into a shopping market in Berlin, Anis Amri, was radicalized before he committed the crime.The mosque and Islamic center at Fussilet 33 in Berlin had apparently also been radicalizing a number of other youths by convincing them to commit terror attacks in Europe and to join the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The authorities had the mosque under surveillance for a time but did not make a move before 12 innocent civilians were butchered by Amri on December 19, 2016, while leaving around 50 others injured. The police and counter terror authorities also conducted raids in 60 different German cities and searched around 190 mosques to target kingpins of another group called “The True Religion”.

Note the situation got so out of hand that even the German government decided to closed down a major mosque out of the 190 which apparently exist there. It is this kind of country we could become unless our vetting of all immigrants is greatly improved and unless their children are required to attend education based on western culture.

Finally, neither Lewis nor Colvin seem to be aware of the potential terrorist threat from Shia Muslims as well as Sunnis – or at least they fail to mention it. Iran is the main source of Shias and Trump attacked the belligerency of that country when he spoke in Saudi Arabia viz “From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms and trains terrorist, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos the region. For decades, Iran has fuelled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror”. The Hezbollah group established by Iran now controls the south of Lebanon and has stocked the area with more than 100,000 missiles which could be used to attack Israel.

Let us hope that our two heads of security are at least aware of Iran as a source of terrorism.

Polling on the Budget, Terrorists Sources Not Recognised, Nor are Climate Changes

Des Moore — Tue, 30 May 2017 01:52:12 +0000

Polling Does Not Support Budget

Turnbull’s further shift to the left (where is the middle now?) didn’t get any substantive support from the latest Newspoll, with the TPP percentages (47/53) unchanged. Some say that there was no budget “bounce” but the fact that it didn’t rise one bit sends a bad message on both the budget and Turnbull’s leadership even though his satisfaction ratio rose very slightly (so did Shorten’s). One commentator said that “the trend is set and it favours Shorten”.

What could the Coalition do now to even get to equal with Labor? The failure of Turnbull to make use (politically) of the Manchester bombing seems to confirm that he is not up to the leadership role. He had a marvellous opportunity to state that Islam is the source of terrorist activity, as Trump did in Saudi Arabia, and to say that the government will develop an assessment of extremist Islam with a view to disqualifying people from receiving citizenship and tightening policy against the preaching and advocacy of behaviour inconsistent with western values. The discussion paper issued recently under the names of Turnbull and Dutton and titled “Strengthening Australian Citizenship” provides a starting point for a policy on measures to protect democracy from terrorism. We also have counter-terrorism legislation which provides a basis for prosecuting foreign fighters returning to Australia. Yet we find that Attorney General Brandis is refusing to say how many such extremists have been prosecuted under that legislation, although the government has introduced a new offence for visiting a declared terrorist zone (article by Sharri Markson today not digitalised). It is timely to expand counter-terrorist policy.

Recognition of the Source of Terrorism Needed

Never before has there been such an important need for our political leader to make a statement on the source of almost all terrorist activity, Islam. As mentioned in yesterday’s Commentary we have the outrageous assertion by our head of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, that there is no evidence to suggest there is a connection between refugees and terrorism. Andrew Bolt says today that “if the ASIO chief truly doesn’t know of any links between refugees and terrorism, then he must be sacked, instantly, for being asleep at the wheel” (see Bolt on Lewis). But Lewis has also asserted that “I don’t buy the notion the issue of Islamic extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim religion.” To coin a phrase, in some way this is an even worse statement for the Head of ASIO to make. This situation requires a statement by Turnbull explaining that Lewis’s remarks do not reflect government policy and that he has asked Lewis to stand down.

The need is enhanced by a submission made by the non-government Public Health Association to the Inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Tradeinto The status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief. The PHAA says in its submission that the committee should include a recommendation that disavows the notion there is any inherent link between Islam and terror and that any politician who refers divisively … to any religious or ethnic group for the purpose of political gain should be disavowed (see Doctors Say No Link). The PHAA submission was co-signed by its president and former politician Michael Moore, Curtin University professor of international health Jaya Duntas, and David Legge, a scholar emeritus in public health at La Trobe University. With almost 2000 members, the association’s aim is to enhance population health results based on prevention, the social determinants of health and equity principles. To date, almost 200 submissions have been made to an Inquiry which is seemingly fruitless and will only serve to cause divisiveness.

Another development relevant to increasing terrorism (although not directly in Australia) and to “big government”, is this article on Islamic Influence Under Macron, the new French President. This article is by Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris who is the author of 27 books on France and Europe. Milliere claims that:

Macron’s victory was not decisive, that more than half of those who chose him were apparently voting against Marine Le Pen, and that Macron won by default because he was the last man standing;
He is not a centrist, was discreetly supported by most of the Socialist Party’s leaders and by the outgoing Socialist President, François Hollande, and all of Macron’s team-members were socialists or leftists;
Macron’s entire program is socialist, proposals for additional public expenditures abound, “climate change” is defined as “the key issue for the future of the world”;
Macron is the pure product of what analysts described as the “French nomenklatura” — an arrogant élite, composed of senior officials, political power-holders and the businessmen working in close collaboration;
His aim is to consolidate the power of those who placed him where he is; their goal is to create a large, single, center-left, technocratic political party that will crush the old political parties;
Another goal is to entrust ever more power to the technocratic unaccountable, untransparent and undemocratic institutions of the European Union: it is a goal Emmanuel Macron never stopped emphasizing;
Macron says the demographic deficit requires more immigration, to encourage mobility between the two shores of the Mediterranean, and to offer asylum to all those who seek its protection;
With almost all refugees arriving in France being Muslims, Macron wants Islam to have more room in France, a new structure will make it possible to relaunch the work sites of the Muslim religion in France;
The French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood congratulated Macron on his victory, publishing an official communiqué saying the new President of the Republic will allow the reconciliation of France with itself;
Macron’s prime minister, Edouard Philippe, has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and favoured their installation in the city of which he is the mayor, Le Havre;
Richard Ferrand, a Socialist MP, now Minister for the Cohesion of Territories, has been financially contributing to the anti-Israel BDS movement and to “pro-Palestinian” organizations for years;
Gerard Collomb, the Socialist Mayor of Lyon, and now Interior Minister, financed the French Institute of Muslim Civilization that will open its doors in December 2017;
Macron said he was “dismayed” over the Manchester Arena terror attack, adding that he was “filled with dread”, but did not express the necessity of confronting the danger. The French have every reason to be nervous.

Whether these objectives will be achieved remains to be seen, but they send a warning note of what can happen when a large body of Muslims accumulate in a country (France has the largest proportion of Muslims of any European country).

Climate Change Policy

Developments since the G7 meeting in Sicily suggest that, although our left media have claimed that Trump was “isolated” there on climate policy, a better interpretation is that the other 6 have been put on the defensive, with Merkel reportedly “angry” about Trump refusing to endorse the Paris Agreement and stating publicly that with Brexit and Clexit Europe is now on its own. As such, it will need to stop being angry and adopt some better policies.

The body in the US which has adopted a sceptical view for many years (The Science and Environmental Policy Project or SEPP) points out in its latest newsletter that “Those advocating the Paris Agreement have never offered physical evidence that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming / climate change. They just assumed it. So did the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other political bodies such as the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), with a budget of about $2.5 billion per year”. One might add here that Australia’s supposedly scientific bodies also provided little substantive argument in support of the dangerous warming thesis and that Australian political leaders swallowed the hook.

If Trump now arranges for the EPA under his newly appointed leader Scott Pruitt to publish a meaningful document on what SEPP describes as the “physical evidence”, it will expose how these assumptions were foolishly accepted by politicians and scientists, including those in Australia. SEPP also refers to the latest economic forecasts by the OECD for G7 countries as being for Canada (2.34%), France (1.59%), Germany (1.74%), Italy (1.03%), Japan (0.83%), the United Kingdom (0.96%) and the United States (3.00%). It argues that, from this, one can conclude that there is no other country on the list whose economic policies are desirable for the US to imitate and concludes that “Mr. Trump has a powerful economic reason to abandon the Paris Agreement and no scientific justification for staying in the agreement”. Of course, the differences in growth rates cannot all be attributed to climate change policy differences. But Europe has been more global warmish than elsewhere and SEPP points out that “the economies of countries such as the UK, Germany, and Italy are stagnating in part due to government policies that did not appropriately account for the increases in electricity costs that occur in shifting from reliable fossil fuel generation to unreliable solar and wind generation. Germany is compounding its problem by shifting from reliable nuclear generation and is being forced to expand power plants burning brown coal, which produces more CO2 than black coal (a higher thermal content)”. Here too Australia is on the same economically wasteful track.

Turnbull Omits Islam; Trump to Announce Climate Change Policy

Des Moore — Sun, 28 May 2017 12:57:33 +0000

Terrorism and Islamic Connections

In Friday’s Commentary I highlighted the editorial in The Australian saying “that Islamist terror cannot be bought off; it wants nothing less than a totalitarian caliphate for the planet. Jihad denialism, which wilfully obscures the wellsprings of Islamist violence, has limited appeal in Australia although its supporters include progressive elites with their media megaphones”. I also drew attention to the failure of Turnbull to make any reference to the likely source of the terrorist bombing in Manchester being Islamic and that he seemed “largely to be missing” from various references by other ministers to sources and the need for policy changes.

Since then it has become abundantly clear that belief in extremist Islam was the source but Turnbull has still made no Islamic reference. In her article in today’s Herald Sun, headed Time for truth on Islam, Peta Credlin rightly says “Right now in this country, we’re having two conversations; one where we use the word “Islam” and one where we don’t. Last week in parliament, the PM condemned the terrorist attack in Manchester and, while replete with words of solidarity, his multiple speeches all failed to mention the religion in whose name the killings had occurred”. Credlin confirmed that she had been unable to find any Islamic reference on Turnbull’s web site.

Andrew Bolt also referred yesterday to the incredible reply by the head of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, to a question at the Senate Estimates hearing by Pauline Hanson on whether refugees are a source of terrorism. His answer was “I have absolutely no evidence to suggest there is a connection between refugees and terrorism”. Needless to say, Bolt has given numerous examples of terrorist activity by refugees (see attached Bolt on Lewis). He asks whether “our ASIO boss is blind to the facts – and to a clear and present danger?” and notes that Lewis has been quoted by a leading Fairfax reporter, Mark Kenny, as “confirming” (sic) that Hanson was wrong to imply any connection.

It will be recalled that, shortly after Turnbull became PM, he quoted Lewis as an authority and that he (Turnbull) had been advised then by Lewis that there is no religious connection. I drew attention then (in December 2015) to comments by Lewis reported in the Herald Sun “warning against being too critical of the Muslim religion as that may impact negatively on ASIO’s access to information. Astonishingly, Lewis states that he doesn’t ‘buy the notion the issue of extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim religion’. This is an extremely worrying comment by Australia’s top counter-terrorist (possibly prompted by Turnbull) and suggests he needs a refresher course on the religion by someone like Durie” (Rev Mark Durie is of course a real expert on Islam who has written on Islamic beliefs). Lewis subsequently went quiet but has now awoken.

It is sometimes said “once bitten twice shy”. But Lewis is clearly not shy of making errors which a head of ASIO should not make. He should be replaced ASAP. The question also arises as to why Turnbull has not made a meaningful statement on what is an important policy issue for Australia. He should do so –also ASAP.

Trump’s Overseas Visit

Trump is on his way home after the meeting of G7 (no Russia) and forcing the other 6 to accept a watered down communiqué (such meetings usually produce 10 pagers full of good intentions!). Possibly the most important reason for the “short” version is that Trump refused to say whether the US accepted the Paris Agreement on climate change. It appears that he said he would make a decision next week (see attached Trump on Climate Change).

This attached report says that “While the declaration included remarkable language highlighting that the U.S. stood apart, the other G7 members expressed some relief that Trump had not outright rejected the accord and said they remained hopeful he would come around ‘The United States of America is in the process of reviewing its policies on climate change and on the Paris Agreement and thus is not in a position to join the consensus on these topics’ the leaders wrote. ‘Understanding this process, the Heads of State and of Government of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom and the Presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission reaffirm their strong commitment to swiftly implement the Paris Agreement, as previously stated at the Ise-Shima Summit’.”

It also refers to Trump’s claim that a major topic at the Summit was terrorism and that he had succeeded in persuading some to step up their defence contributions under the NATO agreement. Some of such claims are made for home consumption and gaffes have been made, but the attached analysis by Greg Sheridan in the Weekend Australian provides an excellent summary with a balanced conclusion viz “The question is this: will Trump’s wildly dysfunctional style and the frenzy of his political enemies overwhelm the good things his administration is trying to do, in a foreign policy that is much more conventional, both for good and for bad, than we ever expected?” (see attached Sheridan on Trump O’Seas Visit).

In my view, the most remarkable conclusion that emerges from Trump’s oversea visit is that, despite the extensive criticism of his political amateurism and “not suited to be President” by “experts” and political opponents, Trump has shown that he can handle not only the leaders of other countries but the important policy issues which are discussed. I can think of quite a few other leaders who, even with political backgrounds, never really made it. Of course, that may still happen to Trump.

It has become clearer and clearer that the questioning in Washington and in left-wing media of his attitudes and relationships is designed by political opponents (and the left wing media) to push his polling lower and create the possibility of an impeachment. It is also apparent that his predecessor established or maintained sections in the bureaucracy designed to make it more difficult for Trump to make substantive changes in policy or even to prevent them altogether.

I have previously mentioned the use by Obama of executive powers to determine environmental policy without involving Congress. My “spy” in Washington has now drawn my attention not only to the establishment within the EPA (ie not a political appointment and not therefore readily dismissible on a change of government) of a Scientific Integrity group but that this group remains operative within the EPA and is busy arranging inter alia a “conference” in June of like-minded scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists. I recommend that you read the full text of the attached article just published in the Wall St Journal (see attached Trump & Scientific Integrity).

The Source of Terrorism Today

Des Moore — Fri, 26 May 2017 07:30:19 +0000

Miracles do happen! Even so I was surprised to open today’s Age and find they had published my letter arguing for action to expose and attack extremist Islam. It was also the lead letter. The Australian also published a letter by me in similar vein, along with other “strong action” type letters (see both my letters below) and an excellent editorial which identifies in no uncertain way “that Islamist terror cannot be bought off; it wants nothing less than a totalitarian caliphate for the planet. Jihad denialism, which wilfully obscures the wellsprings of Islamist violence, has limited appeal in Australia although its supporters include progressive elites with their media megaphones” (see Editorial on Terrorist Risk).

A question which arises is how exactly did PM Turnbull react. His immediate statement acknowledged that it was an act of terrorism but made no reference to the likely source being Islamic (see attached Turnbull on Manchester). He also said that the government is developing a plan on how to deal with threats to mass gatherings, but made no change in the “probable” threat level even though a possible network was involved in the bombing. He does seem to have been involved actively , however, in using question time to tackle Shorten, who he described as “captain of fantasy” (see Turnbull in Q Time).

Meantime, ASIO head Lewis told a Senate estimates hearing “This is not the end, it’s not the beginning of the end, it’s more like the end of the beginning. We don’t see this finishing any time soon.” Immigration Minister Dutton has been active on 2GB radio (Hadley interviews him once a week instead of Morrison). He said that Australians who went overseas to fight with ASIS deserve to be killed, that the ABC’s decision to axe the program by Yassmin Abdel-Magied was a “good start” (adding that there is “one down, many to go”) and describing the behavior of Tony Jones (who runs Q&A) as “a disgrace”. Justice Minister Keenan said those who returned from overseas would be prosecuted for their crimes and Brandis foreshadowed legislation allowing the Australian Defence Force to be called out to assist in terrorist events. Former PM Howard also joined in with a warning that “attacks were likely to happen again”.

Such developments in Coalition policy and attitudes are promising. But Turnbull seems largely to be missing. As leader he needs to make a statement confirming that the source of the problem is the extremist version of Islam and saying that Australian policy is now aiming to pass legislation allowing action to be taken against those who indicate support for the extremist version either by what they say or what they are detected as planning. He should indicate that if necessary a constitutional change will be sought. In short, as stated by Trump in Saudi Arabia, Australian policy would be based on driving “out the terrorists and extremists” wherever this is feasible.

An approach along these lines is warranted by the Coroner’s report on the Lindt Café incident, and the inadequate response since then in NSW in particular, as well as the latest reports on the Manchester bombings. The latter indicate inter alia that:

The entire family of the terrorist may have been involved, in one way or another, in links to a terrorist group or groups and may have had connections with the Paris and Brussels attacks. Of particular interest is that the terrorist’s mother is apparently a nuclear scientist (see Terrorist’s Family Involved);
There were extremist teachings by a brother at a local mosque;
The bomb was particularly sophisticated and its construction was likely helped by an “expert” (sic);
The terrorist was partly motivated by revenge for the killing of children in Syria/Iraq and a belief that UK and US forces were involved;
There are claims that warnings had been made well before the bombing to police and intelligence agencies that the man who became a terrorist was a danger.

This and other reports not only indicate the extent to which the North (in particular) of England has been penetrated by extremist Muslims but how difficult it must be for police and intelligence agencies to keep track of what suspects are doing. Incidents in Australia have suggested the same problem exists here. But my conclusion is that there now needs to be action that will threaten to impinge on human rights, and as such be subject to strong protests, that will require a strong political leader. Human rights must be protected but they must also be more subject to intrusions to ensure our democratic society prevails.

One last word. This report of the failed attempt to stop action by extremists in southern Philippines indicates that Christians were being beheaded. Yet we continue to have very little response by our Christian churches.

Reactions to Melbourne Islamist Threat

Des Moore — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 01:28:44 +0000

Melbourne’s Islamist Threat

Victorian Police Commissioner Ashton stated that the charging of five men with the threat of implementing terrorist acts in the centre of Melbourne was based on evidence that they intended to undertake an explosive event and use other weapons indiscriminately. It appears the police had been aware for some time that they had been planning terrorist action and had concluded that, when some of them were recently seen visiting possible targets (including St Paul’s Cathedral), it was time to arrest them. Ashton claimed publicly that they were “self-radicalised, we believe, but inspired by ISIS and ISIS propaganda.” He also said four of the five were Australian-born with a Lebanese background and”there is another suspect in this matter who will be charged that was an Egyptian-born Australian citizen. All the others were Australian-born”.

The bottom line here is that these men, and almost certainly others associated with them, are jihadists who believe in killing non-Muslims and are prepared to become suicide bombers to do so (and also kill some Muslims deemed not in the “right” sect too). I have not seen any reports about their families and their attitudes but the fact that more than a “lone wolf” is involved suggests the self-radicalisation process is well and truly available through prayer rooms and the like in Melbourne suburbs (there appear to have been links to Western Sydney too). The “inspiration” from ISIS confirms that the extremist Islam message is world-wide and influencing behaviour here. The charges make it an offence to do any act in preparation or planning for a terrorist act. If found guilty they could face life in prison, provided the judge maximises the sentence.

Below are photos (?) of three of the men currently held in custody. Media also showed photos of women dressed in niqabs (total coverage of head).

Photo: Abdula Chaarani (L), Ahmed Mohamad (C) and Hamza Abbas (R) were all remanded into custody.

Initial Reaction of Political/ Religious Leaders

Prime Minister Turnbull held a press conference on Friday with Minister for Justice Keenan and the Australian Police Commissioner (see Turnbull Press Conference on Islamist Threat). His comments included the following
“This is one of the most substantial terrorist plots that has been disrupted over the last several years. I want to thank the men and women of the police in Victoria, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO and other agencies, for their work in thwarting this terrorist activity which was an Islamist terrorist plot inspired, as the Victorian Police Commissioner just observed a moment ago, by Daesh or ISIL. It has been a very complex investigation and it speaks volumes for the competence and professionalism of our police and security agencies which are the best in the world”.
Turnbull’s recognition of “an Islamist terrorist plot” is a vast improvement on his initial denial when he became PM of the religious influence.

Unfortunately, Victorian Premier Andrews failed badly when he said “This is not an act of faith. What was being planned, what will be led in evidence, what the police will allege, was not an act of faith, not an act of religious observance, it was, instead, in its planning, an act of evil, a criminal act”. It clearly involved a threat to the Christian religion. The Victorian Opposition leader, Matthew Guy, also made only a constrained critique of the threat (see Melbourne Islamist Threat Not Religious).

Also, even though the Islamists clearly included St Paul’s Cathedral as a possible target I have been unable to find any statement of substance about the threat by our religious leaders. One wonders if they see any threat to the religion they proselytise.

Additional Action Needed

The Turnbull government has been supported by Labor in securing the passage of amendments to tighten security legislation. As indicated in (Improved Legislation Combating Terrorism),

“since September 2014, the government has passed eight separate tranches of national security legislation that have either amended existing offences, created new ones or extended far-reaching surveillance, arrest and control powers to security agencies. Beyond secret intelligence operations, figures from the Australian Federal Police show police have arrested more than 40 suspected terrorists under changes to the law that lower the threshold for arrest in terrorism cases. Police have also begun pros¬ecuting people for the newly created offence of advocating terrorism”.

Nonetheless, much more needs to be done, particularly in regard to making the advocacy of terrorism an offence severely punished. And, in addition to further tightening of offences both political and religious leaders need to make public statements rejecting those who support sharia law and jihadism, and explaining why they are rejected. It should be explained that such support constitutes an attempt to undermine Western values and change the basis of life in Western countries.

As pointed out below by Andrew Bolt, a much stricter control over immigration is also needed. Thanks to the border control policies introduced under the Abbott government there is now a wider recognition of the importance of controlling all immigration in order to minimise the risk of allowing extremist Islamists into the country. But it is not clear that existing controls are adequate.

The recent incidents in Germany illustrate the problem with an open borders policy such as that adopted by Merkel. It has been reported recently that a significant proportion of those who so entered Germany may have to be deported. As indicated by Mark Steyn in the this article published in the Herald Sun before the Melbourne arrests, the increased risk of terrorist activity also requires a large expansion in police and security agents and even that does not stop the terrorists who are motivated by opposition to Christianity and western values generally.

SA Blackout, Qld Commits to Renewables, Turnbull on Racial Discrimination

Des Moore — Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:41:21 +0000

What Value in Renewable Energy?

Part 1 – South Australian Blackout

It is now more than two weeks since the South Australian blackout on 28 Sept and yet the South Australian government has said nothing about the possible need to change its existing policy of relying on wind power to supply 40 per cent of the energy for electricity. Indeed, in terms of official news releases it took five days before on Oct 4 Premier Weatherill made even a formal acknowledgement of the blackout However, he did then announce an “independent” review led by former Police Commissioner Burns on October 4. My inquiry to the Premier’s office about whether submissions could be made has still not been answered.

Then, on 11 October Energy Minister Koutsantonis was reported in The Australian as warning that the state faced the potential of more blackouts because of its energy mix of more than 40 per cent renewables. He acknowledged that “the problem we have is that when wind comes on, it pushes gas generation out…it’s clean energy and reliable, but can’t be dispatched all the time”. One would have thought that some change in policy might have been made or sought to prevent such an occurrence or at least reduce the possibility of a blackout.

On Wednesday 12 Oct it was reported that the SA government had revoked the emergency control order of the energy market by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). This apparently exposes purchasers of electricity to prices determined in the spot market (AEMO appears to have set prices). Koutsantonis was reported as complaining that the government had “very few levers it can pull because the previous Liberal government sold our power assets to monopolies and the electric market is operated by national agencies”. This development prompted me to send the letter which The Australian published today suggesting that the existing structure of the energy market is such that it should remain under emergency control with AEMO (see below).

Meantime, while all this was happening the Premier acted to confirm his Green inclinations. This involved taking his family on a few days walking tour of the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail. He officially announced this in a news release on his return (he explained that the expenditure of $5.8 mn on the trail was an election commitment of the government’s nature-based tourism strategy).

Blackout could recur (Letter published in The Australian, 14 Oct 2016. Phrases in square brackets deleted by Ed)

It is premature for the South Australian government to revoke the emergency control of its energy market given to the Australian Energy Market Operator (“Power fears as emergency order ends” 12/10).

Energy Minister Koutsantonis blaming the opposition for selling the State’s power assets skates over the real problem caused by the government’s decision to expand the use of wind power to supply 40 per cent of energy.

That decision appears to have been made for political reasons [and there has been no indication that the government undertook a careful analysis of the risks involved, particularly the lack of sufficient back-up supply from generators fuelled by coal or gas in circumstances where the wind supply is intermittent.]

[Expert] analysis [emphasises that as fundamental and also] cautions against any extensive use of windpower in circumstances where a group of generators is operated at synchronous speed. In that situation the loss of a few generators because of either excessive or small wind can disrupt the whole system and that may be what happened in SA. It is possible also that it could happen again{, which seems to have been acknowledged by the Minister. Until that is determined a skilled operator should continue to control the energy market and the government must review its 40 per cent policy].

Des Moore, South Yarra Vic

What Value in Renewable Energy?

Part 2 – Queensland

The Queensland Government is apparently determined not to be left out of developing the Green strategy of using renewable energies. Qld Energy Minister Mark Bailey released on 12 October (see Qld Renewable Energy Press Release) a draft report by an independent Panel which outlines possible ways of reaching the 50 per cent target by 2030 and which will undertake a second round of community consultations before delivering its Final Report to Government by the end of the year. The draft report claims that the target can be met “while maintaining electricity security and reliability over the next 14 years”.

This presumably reflects the Minister’s statement in the press release that “coal and gas-fired generation are expected to continue to play a significant role in Queensland to 2030 under a 50 per cent target” and, as reported in the attached article in the AFR, that there will be no closures of such generators (see AFR on Qld Renewables Policy). This would be consistent with the need to have back-ups for generators constructed to use renewables when the supply of such renewables is not available because of low or excessive wind or no sun during the night/clouds. But it would of course mean a considerable doubling up of production capacity and a resultant substantial addition to capital costs. Note that the map of projects shown in the AFR article includes a substantial number using solar power.

There is no recognition in the statement of either the problem of having no supply of energy available when using renewables or the resultant need for back-ups using coal or gas.

What Value in Renewable Energy?

Part 3 – Turnbull’s View

The claim by Turnbull that the Labor States have excessive renewable energy targets raises the question of where to draw the line. Turnbull has indicated that he supports the use of renewables but has given no indication of where the balance should be struck between RETs and fossil fuels or indeed whether the use of fossil fuels should be recognised as appropriate at all. This exposes him to being attacked for not saying what he really stands for. Andrew Bolt argues “Yes, Turnbull will be criticised by the Left, but better to be attacked for what you are for rather than for what you are against. Turnbull today is in the Land of No. Time to find the Land of Yes” (see attached Bolt on Turnbull). Butperhaps it is more a matter of being caught between Yes and No.

ASIO Annual Report

A brief report in today’s Australian says that ASIO Chief Duncan Lewis has indicated in his annual report that “ASIO cannot provide complete assurance that all terrorist attacks or high harm espionage activities affecting Australia and Australians will be identified and prevented” (see ASIO Concerned About Extremist Threat). In what seems something of a retraction of his earlier statement when Turnbull became PM, Lewis refers to the danger coming from “a small number of individuals in Australia who remain committed to anti-Western, violent and extremist Sunni Islamist ideology”. He had earlier denied any connection with religion, as indeed had Turnbull at that time.

This follows a speech made by Turnbull to Parliament on 10 Oct rejecting any banning or limiting of Muslim immigrants and arguing that “As leaders our job is to explain the facts, reassure citizens and ensure that everything we do is calculated to keep Australians safe.” (see Banning Muslims). The AFR article reporting the speech indicated that Mr Turnbull noted that terrorists wanted the wider Australia community to turn against Muslims. “Their message to Australian Muslims is ‘you are not wanted here, you will never be accepted here, you cannot be Australian.’,” he said. The most effective weapon against this is inclusion. “An inclusive nation is a safer nation. It enables our security agencies to better protect us. It enables them to secure the support and assistance of the Muslim communities without which they cannot keep us safe,” he said. “Australia’s migrant story tells us that if we keep learning from each other, opening our doors, our hearts and our minds, harmony will win out.”

The article also refers to an ANU study that shows 71 per cent of Australians are concerned or very concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in Australia and 56 per cent want more done to prevent an attack. This suggests that Turnbull needs to do much more than support inclusion.With Muslims in particular it is not sufficient to say that “Australia’s migrant story tells us that if we keep learning from each other, opening our doors, our hearts and our minds, harmony will win out”(see full text of speech as Turnbull on Racial Tolerance & No Banning of Muslims).