Institute for Private Enterprise » Chris Kenny

Dutton Exposes Turnbull

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

Dutton Exposes Turnbull Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Early Election?

Des Moore — Sat, 08 Dec 2018 21:47:38 +0000

An Early Election?

In Thursday’s Commentary I referred to the view of The Australian’s political editor (Dennis Shanahan) that Morrison still has a “last chance” of winning the election. In Weekend Australian Shanahan acknowledges that “the Liberal Party is in a mess” but also points out that “Labor finished the last week of parliament for the year on the back foot over national security and border protection, giving Morrison a reprieve from the dismal Liberal outlook. The Prime Minister was able to declare there would be a budget surplus next year, he changed Liberal leadership rules, intervened to stop a preselection brawl, asserted his authority over Turnbull and avoided an embarrassing defeat on the floor of parliament” (see Shanahan Says Morrison Has a Reprieve).

It is pertinent that Shorten has a three day national conference starting on 16 December for which he has already conceded a chink in border protection policy by supporting watered-down immigration rules that would hand doctors the power to relocate “medically-needy” (sic) refugees to Australia (see Benson on Labor’s Softening of Border Policy). He may be under pressure at that conference to make some further softening from the left in Labor.

Given that Morrison played a leading role in “stopping the boats” when working as a minister under the Abbott government, any such softenings provide Morrison with an opportunity to further attack Shorten and, more generally, to emphasise the risk of a Labor government. Interestingly, the Italian government has announced that Italy will not sign the UN’s Global Compact on Migration (the Morrison government has also refused to sign) and the Italian Parliament has approved (396 to 99) what is described as a tough new immigration and security law that will make it easier to deport migrants who commit crimes and strip those convicted of terrorism of their Italian citizenship. Morrison has already seen the “attack Shorten opportunity” in an article published in Friday’s OZ in which he accuses Shorten of “incrementally dismantling the government’s successful border protection policies”.

Also pertinent is Labor’s climate change policy of a 45% reduction in emissions and 50% increase in renewable by 2030. This provides a basis for Morrison to attack its much higher economic cost (including higher electricity prices) than the Coalition’s policy adopted under Turnbull, which provides for a 26-28% reduction in emissions by 2030 and a 23.5% increase in renewable by 2020.The Coalition has also dropped the (unworkable) NEG “formula” approved under Turnbull and which Labor has now indicated that it may use.

Further, now that Turnbull seems to have lost his position as a self-appointed adviser, there should be scope to reduce Coalition targets on the basis, first, that Labor has energy policies which are highly damaging economically and will cause higher electricity prices, second, that it has reviewed policies made while Turnbull was PM and will make adjustments which bring Australia’s policies more in line with those being pursued by other countries and, third, that the emissions targets set in Paris in 2015 do not seem to be being followed. In fact the estimate for 2018 shows an increase of 2.7% in world emissions and initial reports from the current IPCC conference being held in Poland suggest that China and India are seeking to exempt themselves from making reports on what their emissions actually are.

In his article in Weekend Australian Chris Kenny points out that the protesters openly calling for action to reduce emissions fail to recognise the extent of action which has actually been taken by Australia and “which has elevated our energy costs and contributed to job losses and economic dislocation, and delivered no environmental benefit because global emissions continue to rise substantially”. He rightly points out that “when students call for ‘action’ they mean they want additional action: on top of the Kyoto targets, Paris commitments, the renewable energy target, solar subsidies, battery subsidies, light globe laws, renewable energy grants, Snowy Hydro 2.0 and direction action projects. When they protest in the streets their teachers, parents and many politicians cheer them rather than inform them”.

The publication by the Morrison government of an assessment showing that Australia has already taken much more action than almost all other countries would help justify adjustments to existing policies and at the same time put the Coalition in a position where it could point out that Labor’s policy would further widen the economic cost compared with other countries and would significantly reduce Australia’s international competitiveness. Kenny notes that, ”in interviews this week, I asked a protester’s parent and Richard Denniss of green-left think tank the Australia Institute if they could name a country that was doing more on climate action at greater economic cost than Australia. Neither gave me an answer”.

Apart from the foregoing differences with Labor, Morrison also has scope to point to the improvement in the federal government’s budgetary position which will be published in the normal Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook sometime this month and which Treasurer Frydenberg has already indicated will (at last) show a surplus, possibly this financial year. It will also doubtless include a (justifiable) claim that Australia is performing better economically than other OECD countries. Labor will find it difficult to counter these claims, particularly as it has already indicated that if elected it will increase taxes by lifting the marginal tax rate from 47 to 49 per cent, ceasing negative gearing provisions and not reducing taxes on “big businesses”.

The foregoing has led Terry McCrann to suggest that an earlier election than May would be justified. An election in March would “lock in” the favourable budgetary and economic forecasts in the MYEFO publication and prevent any significant change in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) which would be made by Treasury before the election (see McCrann Suggests Early Election). By contrast, a May election could suffer from any slow-down in the economic/budgetary outlook, which many forecasters are predicting following the “weak” economic figures just published for the September quarter.

An early election would run the risk that the Morrison government would be portrayed as a “cut and run” attempt at winning and avoiding outstanding issues. But it would have the potential of bringing the Liberal party closer together as well as taking advantage of the issues mentioned above on which Morrison seems to be ahead of Shorten, including of course the absence or near absence of Turnbull as a policy maker. If Morrison can perform as well as he did in the last week of Parliament, an early election could prove a last chance winner.

More ‘Movement at the Station’ Needed

Des Moore — Sun, 28 Oct 2018 22:53:52 +0000

More “Movement at The Station” Needed

Many will be aware of Banjo Patterson’s ballad on The Man from Snowy River, which began with “There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around That the colt from old Regret had got away, And had joined the wild bush horses”. Clancy of the Overflow then caught the escaped horse and turned around the other horses which had formed a collective with the colt. But Clancy had first to overcome numerous obstacles.

There is increasing recognition that Morrison needs also to make more ”movements at the station”. This is widely reflected in the weekend media.

He has succeeded in overcoming some challenges and displays enthusiasm to do more. But, as Chris Kenny points out, every time Morrison “tries to solve one problem it seems to create another. Hence a rushed announcement on our Israeli embassy aimed at winning votes in the Wentworth by-election doesn’t work and exposes the government’s cynicism; an overreaction to the partially leaked and dishonestly characterised recommendations of the Ruddock review on religious freedom prompts rushed new laws that come unstuck; and a quick fix with Indonesia to send Turnbull to a Bali conference opens internal schisms in the Coalition and sends mixed signals to the public” (see Kenny on Morrison).

Kenny argues that “If climate is set to be a major issue at yet another election — as seems clear — then Morrison must have a comprehensive policy that sits in stark contrast to Labor’s reckless plan for a 50 per cent renewable energy target and 45 per cent emissions reduction goal. Getting into a climate compassion competition with Labor is the road to ruin, economically and politically”. Further, “if the Coalition can unite behind a clear agenda while attacking Labor, the government will stand a good chance. However, recent history suggests such cohesion and tactics might be beyond them”.

It is time, Kenny rightly says, for “Morrison to admit the government had drifted off course under Turnbull and for him to be unashamed about applying a corrective, especially on climate and energy. He doesn’t need to overdo it because, as outlined, the fundamentals are strong. A steady continuum from here will spell certain defeat. It will not be enough for the Morrison government to campaign on the best achievements of the Abbott and Turnbull governments. It can only succeed if it rapidly develops a character and agenda of its own, and engages in robust battles with Labor on areas of Coalition strength”.

In a word, bring the horses home and get them together as a group, just as Clancy did.

Importantly, The Australian’s political editor has pointed out that “with the Coalition trailing Labor in Newspoll 53-47 per cent on the two-party-preferred vote, Mr Abbott has now said he would do “everything I can” to help Mr Morrison win the election, which is due to be held by May next year… Mr Abbott, referring to his removal as Liberal leader in 2015 and Mr Turnbull’s removal three months ago, said: “People who regard themselves as Liberal voters who are dismayed and disappointed with the events of the last three years must grit our teeth and vote for the better choice of the Scott Morrison-led Coalition over the Bill Shorten-led Labor Party”.“In the end, an election is less about striking a pose than choosing a government. “No government is going to appeal to every single voter but when it comes to a choice between Morrison and Shorten it is a no-brainer” (see attached OZ on Abbott}.

Moving Abbott to a more important “station” than he now has would be one of the measures Morrison could take – and needs to do so asap – in the near future.

Indeed, changes such as this could help the Coalition in Victoria in the 24 November election, where it appears to be behind in the polls (about 49/51 TPP) but has just secured considerable financial assistance from the Cormack Foundation. A win in Victoria would be of considerable assistance to Morrison, who faces a Newspoll on tomorrow which is unlikely to show any improvement (see Labor Ahead for Vic Election).

Part of the basis for another change could also be found from the release of a new data series from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Friday showing that coal mined in Australia in 2017-18 was valued at $65.6 billion, up from $41.4bn in 2013. “This is the first time that statistics for output (by commodity) and intermediate use of inputs have been published for the mining industry,” the ABS said. Gas production also increased dramatically over the past five years, rising from $22bn in 2013 to $46.5bn in 2018. In 1994-95, gas production was worth $2.6bn (see Energy Ministers Meet).

As domestic usage of coal would probably have fallen since 2013, or at least not increased as much as the ABS data indicates, the increase in exports could be used to argue not only the important role it is playing in increasing national income but the absurdity of further reducing emissions here while the overseas users of our coal are increasing their emissions, with some such as China doing so quite rapidly.

This development could provide the basis for the Morrison government informing the Paris agreement authority that it has already made its fair share of emissions reductions for the time being and will stop subsidies for renewable except for projects already started. Such a policy change would provide a major difference between the Coalition’s climate change policy and Labor’s.

There is plenty of ammunition available to support a more moderate climate change policy and provide budget savings. Judith Sloan’s survey of the increase in electricity prices and the cost effects of policies provides a basis for having more moderate polices (see Sloan on Energy). For example, the subsidies for renewable are costing $2-3bn per annum and are being paid by taxpayers/consumers. Her conclusion is that “the NEM (National Electricity Market) is in disarray, but let’s not kid ourselves that this is because of policy paralysis. This is because of incredibly poor policy where the consequences in terms of price and reliability were completely foreseeable. The challenge for the federal government is how to pull us back from this abyss”.

Of course, a more moderate federal climate change policy would not prevent some of our states from continuing policies which are costly and have no effect in reducing temperatures. But it would establish a scenario in which state political parties could follow the moderate federal approach and in which Australia would be leading the way towards changes to policies which are approaching those adopted by the US.

Morrison’s Energy Policy Must Be Changed

Des Moore — Fri, 26 Oct 2018 02:18:14 +0000

Morrison Must Change Energy Policy

I was a bit surprised at having two letters on climate change published in succession by The Australian and the latest one along with almost all other letter writers having similar questioning of Morrison’s energy policy as enunciated so far. Of particular interest, but worryingly true, is the heading to the letters below.

Morrison’s approach to energy should suit Labor

The Australian, October 26, 2018

You report that the Morrison government will ask energy companies to reduce power prices by January 1 and that energy retailers will be required to set their prices for small businesses and households. Scott Morrison also says he’s open to bolstering funds for greenhouse gas reductions but claims Labor’s 45 per cent reduction target would have a bigger impact on household electricity prices than the carbon tax (“PM weighs cheap loans for clean coal plants”, 24/10).

It is not surprising the Opposition Leader has no problems with the huge increase in proposed regulations, although Bill Shorten suggests the national energy guarantee be revived. If achieved, the de facto nationalisation of the electricity industry by Morrison would suit Labor.

But the PM is attempting to adopt contradictory and politically suicidal positions to satisfy colleagues’ varying views. The rhyme about shaking your right foot all about to do the hokey-pokey provides a turnaround towards Labor.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Your editorial of September 28 (“Soaring price tag must be faced”) correctly stated that Australia was “responsible for only 1.8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions”, so when John Williams (“We fiddle, our coal burns across the world”, 24/10) says “Australia is responsible for 1.3 per cent of the world’s emissions”, and Doug Hurst (Letters, 25/10) tells us “his facts cannot be disputed”, then the truth is that global warming deniers have no idea what facts are.

Williams’s central premise that Australia’s contribution “would have almost no impact on the world’s climate” is disproved by one fact — we are the world’s biggest coal exporter.

With company directors accepting that climate change is our greatest challenge, it is conservative ideology and media groupthink that prevents the fact-based truth from penetrating the denial cult.

Chris Roylance, Paddington, Qld

The reason the young will abandon the Liberals is because they are so brainwashed with lies about global warming that they now believe it to be fact. It’s long overdue for the government to counter these stories and expose the IPCC for publishing false information and rubbery computer models. This should be played on till the truth gets into their minds and gets them to realise that the climate is controlled by the Earth’s elliptical cycle around the sun.

Brian Doherty, Beenleigh, Qld

How blissful it is to row with the flow of the stream. But the realities of life are that we must frequently row hard against it. Prosecuting the case against socialist ideology and monetary greed of the players in the climate change industry is now the only option to preserve Western democracy (“Young will abandon us for climate inaction, Lib warns”, 25/10). These climate alarmists, socialist elites in political parties, in carefree suburbs, academics and student bodies, media and industry leaders whose interests are clearly on profit, have blindly swallowed the alarmist propaganda of man-made CO2 killing the planet, when hundreds of senior scientists have denounced it as based — at best — on failed computer modelling and at worst fraud and manipulation of data.

Every natural aspect, from the influence of the sun, ocean oscillations, clouds, water vapour — far more abundant and 1000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 — not to mention three decades of evidence, have all been ignored in their so-called science.

We are on the precipice of economic insanity and Western leaders should read, learn and argue the case, rather than lean back on the oars and end up in the deep.

Kevin Begaud, Dee Why, NSW

Any hope some common sense would be brought to the climate change debate by Scott Morrison and Alan Tudge have been dashed. Interviewed on Sky News, Tudge is still talking glowingly on how the Coalition will meets its emission targets, and how Malcolm Turnbull will make a great contribution to the Bali conference. In contrast, his proposed actions to reduce electricity prices have to be described as weak, at best.

The Coalition stills sounds and looks like a clone of Labor, the only difference being the renewable targets and just how much pain they are going to impose on voters.

The future looks black whichever party wins the next election.

R. Watson, Sunnybank Hills, Qld

The Australian, which as previously mentioned has a new editor, has also published three articles on its Commentary page which are questioning of the Morrison approach to energy policy so far. This article by Chris Kenny directs attention to a survey by the Australian Institute of Directors which finds that “climate change is their top issue” and which has attracted considerable publicity. Amazingly, the chief executive of the Institute seems to take as given the jump in concern of company directors and makes no reference at all to the now widespread critiques of the analyses (sic) of what causes climate change (see Company Directors on CChange). Perhaps the Institute has informed its members of other views but there is no sign of it here or in what the Business Council of Australia says in public. And BHP has recently publicly supported more action to reduce emissions.

I don’t agree with everything Kenny says but his article includes the pertinent comment that “the trouble with this argument is that other countries are not reducing emissions; our own coal exports to China, Japan, South Korea and Japan are fuelling continued global emissions growth. There simply is not another nation crippling itself with energy policy contortions to meet emissions reductions targets — Canada is the best comparison and it is missing all targets and winding back emissions reductions measures”.

The other two articles published by The Australian, one by Maurice Newman and one by Henry Ergas, are not directly on climate change but are similarly critical of the attempts to reduce emissions. Ergas for example says “And in climate change policy, which attracted such attention in the by-election, the government has managed both to undersell the carbon emissions it has secured and to systematically understate the vast costs securing them imposes, inviting the incessant clamour for more”. Newman draws attention to the fact that Christiana Figueres, who “led the Paris climate conference that captured Australia” is a Marxist. She has publicly declared that she wants to get rid of capitalism.

Another concern about Morrison’s handling of energy policy is that, before issuing the press release on it with two other Ministers (it was attached to an earlier Commentary by me and is available on my web site), he appears to have failed first to consult the head of ACCC, who has previously been closely involved in the framing of policy. Ministers are not required to make such consultations but it would have been wise to do so, particularly given the complexity of the policy as announced (see Morrison Hasn’t Discussed Energy Policy with ACCC).

I have previously referred to a recent address by US professor Richard Lindzen, an expert on meteorology with over 200 published analyses. He told a London audience that conventional thinking on global warming is “nonsense”, that Australia’s holiday sanctuaries on the Barrier Reef are not in any danger, and that man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem. Lindzen suggested that Australia’s political class “has gone completely bonkers in their response to climate change” and argued that the IPCC report reduced the alleged tipping point from 2C to 1.5C simply because there had been no significant warming for 20 years. There was an obvious need, he said, for something more plausible to ‘sustain’ the renewables bubble.

Lindzen is only one of many scientists in the US and Australia to take a sceptical view about the dangerous global warming thesis. In the US over 30,000 scientists have done so. His expertise on climate change suggests that Morrison should invite him to come to Australia and address audiences in our capital cities and Cabinet. That would help members of the Coalition (and others) to update their assessments of the costs and benefits of policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions and whether any policy adjustment would be warranted.

Perchance, it would eliminate the Turnbullism which seems to be so influencing Morrison.

Morrison Fails to Get Over It

Des Moore — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:01:06 +0000

Morrison Fails to Get Over It

In yesterday’s editorial The Australian concluded by saying that “at some stage we need a serious debate about what we are doing and why” on energy policy (see OZ Editorial on Energy Policy, 12/9). Also yesterday Morrison answered Shorten’s question in the House about why Turnbull has been sacked by telling him to “get over it”. But he is the one who needs to “get over it” – the “it” being Turnbull, who is reportedly still busy from New York telling colleagues to have Dutton’s eligibility to be a minister tested in the High Court. Morrison had no real option but to reject this proposal.

The trouble is that Morrison has made no attempt to explain Turnbull’s abandonment and, what’s more, it is difficult to see any substantive difference between the energy policy announced so far and that followed under the Turnbull government. In fact, while Morrison has drawn attention to areas which require policy attention neglected under Turnbull, such as industrial relations and banking, he has given no indication as to what he might have in mind.

True, he continues off and on to say the number one priority is to reduce power prices. But yesterday he made the absurd statement that Australia has to adopt climate change policies supported by Pacific Islands (a well known regular attempt to get more aid but which would not benefit from the changes sought). Today he is reported as assuring two backbenchers that he will not dump renewable energy targets (see Morrison Endorses Renewable (13/9).

Further, Morrison’s abandonment of the NEG policy, and the legislation embracing the Paris agreement to reduce carbon emissions, do not themselves reduce power prices. The policy that seems to have replaced Paris still involves the same reduction in emissions and the target for renewable is retained. Both of these increase costs once the required additional back-ups are taken into account.

Some reduction may be achieved through possible operative reforms of the energy market as suggested in the ACCC report. But the reported rise in prices in the futures market since the abandonment of NEG suggests downward pressures would have minimal effect. Unless the new government adopts a credible energy policy its Newspoll will be stuck at an unelectable level.

As National Political Editor James Campbell points out in today’s Herald Sun, if the polling booths repeat anything like the Newspoll of a Coalition primary vote of only 34 per cent (Labor 42 per cent), that would slaughter the government (see Campbell on Morrison(13/9). He argues that the Coalition has no chance of winning unless its primary vote is above 40 per cent.

Today’s article by Chris Kenny (who has experience working in a minister’s office) identifies a number of problems areas, viz

“The change in style is everything to Scott Morrison. And this looms as a strategic mistake because he needs to reshape the substance as well”.
“The new leader couldn’t resist the temptation to remake the Coalition in his own image, looking to neutralise most areas of conflict with Labor”.
“Turnbull lost the leadership because he had taken the party to the left, so Morrison needs to show he is taking it back to the mainstream right-of-centre where it belongs. Climate and energy policy is key”.
” Already several backbenchers are agitating to withdraw from Paris and former assistant minister Keith Pitt has rejected a frontbench position to argue this stance. Critics portray them as ideologues, whereas in fact supporting cheap energy is practical and pragmatic; it is making costly and futile climate gestures that is ideological”.
” Our Prime Minister ought to make clear that if something needs to give on electricity prices, reliability or emissions targets, it is the climate goals that will be disregarded”.
”If Morrison runs a version of the Turnbull government, only with an approachable and down-to-earth style, he won’t implode but he won’t win. If he backs that up with a few substantial measures demonstrating his government is firmly rooted in mainstream Coalition territory, winning won’t be out of the question.

Morrison Has Long Way to Go

Des Moore — Sat, 08 Sep 2018 12:55:36 +0000

Morrison Has A Long Way to Go

My last Commentary on 6 September suggested that Morrison has an “in-between” policy on energy and that it was hoped that he would make a broad announcement on policies in a speech scheduled to be made in Albury later that day. Alas, that has not proved to be the case and, despite the abandonment of the Turnbull/Frydenberg NEG, energy policy is worse and as confusing as it was under Turnbull. A quotation from his speech published in the SMH/Age gives the gist of his position,viz

“Mr Morrison said his government would stand by its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 but had no intention of reviewing or adjusting the target in the next term. “I have no plans to do any of that,” he said, adding that Australia had delivered on previous United Nations commitments and would meet stand by the Paris climate change agreement as well. “The government’s policy has not changed. We smashed the Kyoto target and Kyoto 2 and I’m very confident that the current commitment will also be achieved . That’s one of the reasons why I don’t see the emissions argument playing into the electricity price argument.”

… “Mr Morrison denied the emissions target would force up electricity prices. “We’ve separated the two things. There was an effort to work those two issues together. That hasn’t been successful,” he said, in a reference to the government’s internal row on climate policy and its decision to abandon cuts to emissions as part of the National Energy Guarantee. “And so I have a minister for the environment who will pursue climate policy and I have a minister for energy who gets electricity prices down. I think that simplifies the world a bit.”

In short, the cost-raising targets for emissions and renewable remain extant and the policy remains that the government will intervene in the electricity market to an even greater extent than scheduled ( by establishing a “safety net” on price, taking a big stick to major energy companies and backing investment in a new energy generation capacity). One wonders whether Frydenberg persuaded Morrison not to modify the previous policy lest that would expose his closeness to Turnbull and would create too much of a challenge from Shorten. Note that there is no mention of any consultation with Cabinet.

Note also Chris Kenny has pointed out that:

“a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes, has not yet been repudiated as Coalition policy. Morrison and his Energy Minister, Angus Taylor, surely must act to drop it formally when MPs gather in Canberra next week. Despite splitting the energy and environment portfolios and demanding Taylor drive down power prices, Morrison repeatedly and emphatically has committed the Coalition to meeting the Paris targets. At Albury he said the targets would be met easily, ‘with no impact on electricity prices at all’.

This posturing could get messy. Already several backbenchers are agitating to withdraw from Paris and former assistant minister Keith Pitt has rejected a frontbench position to argue this stance. Critics portray them as ideologues, whereas in fact supporting cheap energy is practical and pragmatic; it is making costly and futile climate gestures that is ideological.

It is one thing for Morrison to remain in Paris but it is quite another to place great store on meeting the targets. Most other signatories have no meaningful targets to meet or are on track to miss them. Our Prime Minister ought to make clear that if something needs to give on electricity prices, reliability or emissions targets, it is the climate goals that will be disregarded. Instead he is stuck arguing a contradictory line: that the Paris emissions reductions can be delivered at no cost but Labor’s higher targets will be costly. The truth is policies such as the renewable energy target that were designed and implemented to meet emissions reduction targets already have prompted the closure of large amounts of dispatchable generation in South Australia and Victoria, driving increases in prices and decreases in security of supply.

Arguing the Paris targets have no price impact is just bunkum; it is possible from this point forward only if we ignore how we got to this point. This sort of statement would be called out as a bald-faced lie by Labor, the ABC and most of the press gallery except that they are ideologically predisposed to climate gestures, no matter their cost.

Having seen Turnbull skewered for a second time on climate policy, Morrison must deliver clarity. He needs to remember the Coalition was elected in a landslide promising to undo costly climate interventions, not to implement them. Outside electricity, Paris could play havoc with farming, transport and energy export (see Kenny on Morrison’s Energy Policy).

The reality is that so far Morrison remains a long way from “cutting the mustard”, about which John Stone asks in an article published in today’s Spectator (see Stone on Morrison). Stone argues that “Everyone who seeks, as I do, to avoid a Labor government must wish Morrison well; and since Turnbull’s sacking, and Julie Bishop’s relegation to the backbench, were essential if the Dis-Cons (disaffected conservatives) were to be mollified, he has in that sense made a good start. However, Dutton’s demotion arouses more widespread questions about the new ministry. The fact is that Morrison owes his election to all those left and far left Liberals who previously supported Turnbull, and this is reflected in his appointments”.

On this, Stone points out that, “with a couple of notable exceptions, his new ministry seems little changed in orientation from its predecessor”. He praises the appointment of Taylor as Minister of Energy “to clean up Frydenberg’s mess” and Dan Tehan as Minister for Education “to repair the Birmingham shambles” but regrets the omission altogether of Michael Sukkar who had been Assistant Treasurer. And he suggests “if there is one talisman to which those Dis-Cons will turn when deciding whether to return to their former Liberal affiliations, it will be their assessment of how Abbott has been treated. There is only one word for that – shamefully. On personnel grounds, then, the new Ministry fails the test. Despite all those honeyed words about “re-uniting the party”, Morrison’s appointments are inconsistent, overall, with that objective”.

Unless Morrison can somehow improve the mix, it seems we face more troubles within the Liberal party. Monday’s Newspoll may show an improvement on its predecessor (TPP 44/56) but seem likely to leave Labor ahead

Morrison’s Energy Policy

Des Moore — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 13:31:08 +0000

Why Have We Changed Government?

At his first press conference with Frydenbrg (held before Turnbull’s resignation had been effected legally), Scott Morrison said “I want to start by thanking, and he still is the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. I have known Malcolm for a long time, as you know. He has been a dear friend. He has served his country, in a noble, and professional way. Josh and I have watched and worked with him as he has led our Cabinets and the achievements. We have been proud to serve with him as a government, whether it is in the economy, whether it is in all the other areas that Malcolm has outlined today at his earlier press conference. He is a great Australian who has contributed a great deal to this country and our party and our nation will be very grateful for his contribution” (See Morrison First Pres Con). At that press conference, he had little to say about his government’s policies but was questioned about energy policy and answered as follows

Is the national energy guarantee, and perhaps Josh might care to answer this, still the government’s policy? Are there areas you are looking at changing? And if this is the end of the Turnbull-Abbott era, is there any prospect of Tony Abbott joining the ministry?

These are going to matters of detail, at this stage they are not going to go into. Don’t you said that our government is going to put electricity prices down. We will put in place what we have said from the CCC report, which is to put in the safety net on price. We will put the big stick to ensure that the big energy companies to the right thing by you, the customers. And we will be backing investment in a new energy generation capacity. That is what we will be doing. Specific matters of policy and any changes in that area, I’ll consult with the new Cabinet.

Chris Kenny has argued (see Kenny on Energy as Pivotal) that

“Energy is the pivotal issue. Turnbull’s desire for emissions reductions, Paris compliance and bipartisanship triggered his demise. Morrison has done well in splitting the portfolio from environment and installing Angus Taylor. Now the lignite hits the road. Price and reliability must trump all else, and the clearest way to send that signal would be to withdraw from Paris. But for reasons of diplomatic consistency and trade positioning the Coalition seems loath to do that. It will need not only to articulate how the Paris targets will not drive policy — as Taylor has started to do — but also to demonstrate this reality. Whether it acts to extend the life of the Liddell coal-fired power station in NSW’s Hunter Valley or underwrites new investment in dispatchable generation, it must get something done before the election. It needs a fierce battle with Labor: lower prices versus lower emissions”.

But it is difficult to see from Environment Minister Taylor’s first speech on 30 August that there will be much difference between the major elements of the policy foreshadowed by Turnbull and those now canvassed by Morrison in a 5 page document (see Taylor on Energy Policy). The main points include the following:

He is the minister for reducing power prices and acknowledges that “we had a mess and we are now fixing it, with one aim only – to reduce power prices”;
He makes no reference to the implications of Morrison’s decision to stick to the 26% reduction in emissions and no indication is given to whether this went to Cabinet. Nor does he acknowledge that the substitution of expensive renewable for the usage of coal will in itself add to power prices;
He acknowledges however that there has been “sharp increase in retail electricity [prices], particularly the doubling” under Labor. But he makes no reference to the doubling in whole sale prices since 2015 under Turnbull or to the increase in retail prices which has also occurred in that period. He claims that ”retail and wholesale prices have turned a corner” but does not explain why;
He sees a “strong role for commercially viable renewable, alongside continued focus on coal and gas”. But he says nothing about reducing/eliminating renewable, despite acknowledging that “as more intermittent generation has come into the market, baseload coal generators have left”. He claims new supply can come from “many different sources” and ”we can create an environment where there is sufficient confidence to invest”. No indication is given as to how this could occur for coal-fired generators;
He is “not skeptical about climate science” but he is about the emissions reduction schemes. And he acknowledges that hitherto Governments have done little more than raise electricity prices or government spending. Yet ”we are well past the point” of leaving it to the industry to fix the problems in the electricity industry. Hence, “We need to “empower customers with a price safety net”. As the ACCC has recommended a “default market price”, “we will require retailers to use this” when advertising;
He notes that the PM and Treasurer have already announced “a programme to underwrite new stable, low cost generation for commercial and industrial customers” and that work is being done on the detail;
Price gouging needs to stop and the government accepts ACCC proposals to address this. It may include divestment;
Taylor concludes that ”If industry steps up and does the right thing on price, government can step back and focus on other things”.

No doubt more detail will emerge on energy policy. But the basic situation seems to be unchanged compared with that being developed under Turnbull/Frydenberg. The cost raising targets for emissions and renewable remain extant and the thesis also remains that the government will intervene in the electricity market to an even greater extent, including by guaranteeing “low cost” (ie subsidized) generation. Labor will probably accept the basic approach, but without saying so.

Tax Cuts & Rises in Electricity Prices

Des Moore — Sun, 24 Jun 2018 10:57:51 +0000

Tax Cuts But Taxes Still Increase

The Turnbull government has succeeded in obtaining a welcome reduction in personal income taxes. But the estimated reduction in total tax levels is less than might be imagined from the media exchanges. This is important because, as stated in Budget Paper No.1 for 2018-19, “it is important that the personal income tax system does not act as a disincentive for those taking on additional work or seeking advancement”. Also that the “cap on the overall tax burden… “is consistent with the long term average of 23.9 per cent of GDP” which the government has set.

The estimates show that over the four years 2018-19 to 2021-22 the cuts personal income tax (and other more minor policy changes) would reduce total taxes by $13.9 bn. But over those years total taxes would still increase by an estimated $103bn and even personal income taxes would be slightly higher in 2021-22 than in the current year. A feature of the cuts is that they start with a miniscule amount in 2019-20 and it is not until the following two years that they will be of substance, assuming that the government then in office accepts them.

As for the so called “cap”, the overall tax burden would increase by over 1 per cent of GDP over the four years and is estimated to actually reach that cap in 2021-22.

In sum, if the Coalition is returned to office before the start of 2018-19 it will not directly benefit from the reduced tax levels until the following year other than through any anticipatory effects on taxpayers who will then be paying higher taxes .

Energy Policy in Crisis

In my Commentary last Thursday I suggested that both major parties’ energy policies are centred on reducing emissions of CO2 and that, inter alia, the implementation of the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) would further reduce Australia’s international competitiveness because of the further increase in electricity prices. I also drew attention to public comments by Abbott that a number of Coalition MPs may cross the floor and vote against the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) proposal by Turnbull and his soul mate Josh Frydenberg.

Such opposition may be increased by two articles published yesterday.

In an article titled “This energy hex we place on ourselves, it’s madness”, Chris Kenny argues “we are in a self-imposed energy crisis” which through various measures has dramatically increased electricity prices as a means of reducing emissions of CO2 (see Kenny on CChange). Kenny offers a variety of reasons as to why “there is bound to be a reckoning” if the Turnbull government proceeds with NEG.

In a Quadrant article, climate expert Alan Moran provides a not dissimilar analysis (see Moran on NEG) but adds that

“It is easy to see why this economy-wrecking policy has been put into place. The original carbon tax was introduced by Julia Gillard and devised by the then-Secretary of the Climate Change Department Martin Parkinson. Malcolm Turnbull, as leader of the Opposition, supported that policy and after refusing to reconsider, was defeated on the issue by Tony Abbott. Parkinson was promoted to the Secretary of Treasury.

On becoming Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in line with his commitment, repealed the carbon tax. After a decent interval he also fired Martin Parkinson. On his return to The Lodge, Turnbull appointed Parkinson to head up his own department, from which position he has dictated energy and climate policy”(see attached Moran on NEG”.

In short, views adopted by Liberals Turnbull/Frydenberg, based on advice from supposed experts on the Energy Security Board and the head of Turnbull’s department, have been the main influence on energy policy and those with a different view have scarcely been heard. This now means that Australia will have an energy policy determined by a socialist regulatory body whose main aim is to ensure the reduced emissions target is reached by 2030 and which will manipulate prices and supply to accord with what the market normally does, viz meet demand. That will not only entrench high prices but add to them as cheaper coal-fired generators are replaced by more expensive renewable and gas.

Such a policy is already dated. The Liberals in Monash Forum have now shown that a large number of coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned in other countries; the EU body CAN Europe has acknowledged that, three years after the Paris Agreement set targets, not a single EU state is reducing their greenhouse gas emissions at a rate sufficient to meet those targets; and the USA has withdrawn from that agreement. In effect the targets have been moved many years out in time, if at all.

More generally, this is a test of the Turnbull government: is it to go ahead with a demonstrably faulty scheme or to adopt the more sensible schemes being increasingly used overseas, viz in practice move Paris and provide scope for increased coal-fired productions?

Interpreting the Summit

Des Moore — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 03:04:38 +0000

Some Possible Implications of the Summit

As might be expected with a meeting which lacked definitive agreements, the media (and other commentarists) containmuch speculation today about what has happened and what might now happen. The general reaction seems to be that, while NK has agreed in principle to denuke, that is no different to what his father and grandfather did and it is unlikely that much will be achieved on that side. On the Trump side there are expressions of concern that too much has been conceded unnecessarily.

My letter below, published today in The Australian with some deletions by Ed but restored below in square brackets, takes a more optimistic view under the heading used by Ed – Denuclearisation in Practice Will Demand Finesse

“What is the biggest threat to life on earth? Answer: That the crazy leader of a country with nukes will send a few off to countries he doesn’t like and millions of people will then be killed before he is. [Does this crazy person seem like the present leader of North Korea? Answer: Yes, without doubt.]

What should we do about it? First the leaders of the most important country in the word (the US with its nukes) warns him of the dangers to his country unless he denuclearises. Second, when that doesn’t work, those same leaders tell him there is a better life available for him and his fellow citizens. Third, when that doesn’t work either the current leader of the USA offers to talk to him one-on-one about the benefits from denuclearisation.

After many years of failure, this has now been done. But many don’t like the current US leader and object to what he is offering Mr Crazy, even to meeting him at all. Others would say that the current US leader has shown courage and adopted the only available course short of war.

And, as Prime Minister Turnbull said, isn’t it worth a “red hot go”, all the more so as Trump can withdraw his offer of benefits without any loss except perhaps to his status? [Well, yes and that Trump guy deserves praise.]”

But more comprehensively, Chris Kenny, has an article which gives the best analysis of both Trump and (to a lesser extent) Kim and suggests that the treatment of Trump by the media and other branches of US society (add Australia and other countries) is astray (see Kenny on Trump). This is summed up in the following extract

It is embarrassing to watch, and unhealthy for the players as well as the democracies they serve. Rather than learn anything from the Trump ascendancy they seem determined to teach their nemesis a lesson. But their vitriol can only help Trump, bringing his defiance of the media/political class into sharper focus, highlighting his achievements and ensuring his enemies are stuck in the mire of their disastrous 2016 campaign instead of thinking about how they might do better in 2020. This must be the longest dummy spit in political history.

Kenny argues that Trump has been successful because he “speaks to voters” and is “the exemplar at targeting his audience”, which “makes him a more authentic and honest communicator than other politicians” and this means that his inconsistencies are downplayed. “In other words, even though he sometimes thinks different things at different times and sometimes gets things wrong, Trump says what he thinks. There is no filter. He doesn’t care about the parsing in full carried out by journalists; he tidies up directly with the public”.

I recommend that Kenny’s article be read in full.

This is not to overlook that there are potential problems posed by Trump’s agreement with Kim and these are discussed in Sheridan’s article (see Sheridan on Trump). They include

His “contemptuous and counter-productive disregard for US alliances, his exaggerated need to personalise every issue around whether he is flattered, and his general inability to follow though anything with consistency”. But that Trump has been critical of some in alliance with the US is often justified by their failure to maintain the principles of western beliefs and they have, in fact, benefited from Trump taking back the US’s role as world leader which was lost under Obama. Trump is not the only President to differ with US alliances: Australia has differed with the US in its interpretation of what the west should do in the Vietnam War and the withdrawal from Iraq. Certainly, Trump’s handling of the recent G7 conference might have been done more diplomatically, but his actions contrast with the failure of such conferences in the past to reach any substantive agreement because they judged it best to be ‘diplomatic’;
His agreement with Kim has “been woollier and less specific than the previous (NK) ones”. But the Kim agreement to denuke has only just started and there is no indication that a nuclear (or other) attack on another country (incl SK) will not result in US assistance in some form;
His suspension of US/SK military exercises does not constitute a potential reduction in US help to SK (or other countries in the region).That suspension can be changed overnight and the US troops remain in SK and will reportedly be more active in other ways. It is far too early to see a US withdrawal from Asia;
Trump’s declaration that it is OK for China to remove some of its sanctions against NK contrasts with Trump’s National Security Strategy which identifies China as a strategic rival. Depending on what sanctions are removed this could be of concern, although it may be in response to a prior agreement with China, which appears to have helped pressure Kim to emerge from his shell. In any event Trump has not let China off the hook by his announcement yesterday that the US will put a large volume of China’s exports to the US on tariffs.
Sheridan’s quotation of the critical view by a senior George Bush official (that T doesn’t understand what alliances mean) is a surprise and fails to recognize that Trump has started, or tried to start, a new era in the (smaller) significance of alliances and has started the America First alliance.

Trade between the US and NK was not an issue at the summit, if only because about 75% of NK trade is with China. But NK trade is an issue that relates to Trump’s encouragement to NK to open its economy. More generally, with the new tariffs on imports from China coming on top of the general tariffs on steel and aluminium (with some exemptions), it appears that trade will become an increasingly important issue on Trump’s agenda. I was reminded of this by today’s report that the EU Trade Commissioner is about to visit Australia (see EU Supports Rule Based Order)

I am not up to date with Australia’s trade in agriculture with the EU but some readers of this Commentary will be aware of the Common Agriculture Policy adopted before the EU was formed by the then existing EEC (the monetary union did not start until the 1990s) . The tariffs put on agricultural imports from outside the EU, and the subsidies for EU farmers, stopped or largely reduced our exports to the EU and those exports were only “saved” by the opening up of the Japanese and (later) Chinese markets. The latest report by the EU reports that it is now exporting agri-food products of E138 bn (up 5% on last year), that it has a net trade surplus of E21bn in such products, and that assistance to farmers (ie subsidies) takes about 40 per cent of the EU Budget. Yet the attached report has her denying that European agribusiness policy is protectionist. “It is sensitive for us. I don’t think it’s correct to say we have a protectionist policy here; we reformed our common agricultural policy quite profoundly last year.’’

This is just one of the examples of why Trump is correct in claiming that existing international arrangements have adverse effects on the US (and on Australia). It is bad news that the EU TC has been working with Australia’s Ciobo to attack US trade policy. We should be helping the US where that country can legitimately claim to be unfairly treated.

Cricket, Immigration, Temperatures, Energy Policy

Des Moore — Sun, 01 Apr 2018 11:42:03 +0000

That’s Not Cricket

I find it surprising that, so far, only three players have acknowledged involvement in the scrabbling (worse than “tampering”) of the ball in the last South African test match. Any of the Australian bowlers who used the scrabbled ball would surely have immediately realised that they were handling a ball that had been scrabbled. At his (incomplete) press conference, David Warner refused to answer questions about whether other players were involved. Darren Lehmann’s decision to resign without holding a press conference meant he did not have any questions posed but he should have known if some form of forbidden activity was being used. The same applies to the CEO of Cricket Australia, James Sutherland, who, even if he was told there were only three scrabblers, should have left the question open.

As to the punishment, Smith’s acknowledgement at a press conference that it involved a failure of his leadership was appropriate and he appeared (on this occasion) to accept his demotion as Captain (and Vice) and his no-play of international/national cricket for a year (as has Warner). Some media commentators are suggesting that is enough. That is the flavour of yesterday’s editorial in Weekend Australian which quotes the International Cricket Council’s worrying one match pause only (see OZ on Cricket). Andrew Bolt says the offenders only made “a severe error of judgement” and claims that ball scrabbling has been made in the past by other very senior players who have been charged. If that is the case (and, presumably, they would have been let off with only a limited punishment because the were regarded as “too important for the game”) it is surely not a good reason for limiting the charge now. Yet Bolt concludes that Smith should not be too harshly punished (see Bolt on Cricket).

In fact, offences in the past with little punishment are arguably a good reason for making an example of Smith and the other two now. I would think a three year playing suspension from international/national cricket. To do otherwise opens a real possibility that it will happen again, or to put it another way, that there is a class of player who can get away with a serious offence and are likely to do so when the opportunity arises. The minimal punishments made in the AFL illustrates this.

Also, no direct financial penalty has been imposed by Cricket Australia on the three players. Of course those punished so far will lose financially by their demotions and withdrawal of sponsors. But a sizeable direct charge would seem appropriate particularly given the large sums such players have already received and the possibility that they would have won money by disguised betting on the result of the Ashes.

30 Newspoll Trauma

That the next Newspoll will be the 30^th raises the question of whether Turnbull will just dismiss it or simply repeat his “jobs and growth” story. I am assuming that it will be next Monday and will show no substantive improvement (note however that the last Morgan Poll shows an improved Coalition’s TPP at 49/51 –see Ed Shann on Morgan Poll – whereas the last Newspoll showed 47/53 ). In Weekend Australian, Chris Kenny assumes no improvement and argues that, to have any chance at winning the election, Turnbull has to make major changes, including persuading Abbott to become a member of Cabinet (see Kenny on Turnbull 30 Newspoll Trauma). He also advocates changes in energy policy by Turnbull, including changes I have been advocating such as making “it clear he would rather not meet those emissions reduction targets than jeopardise our electricity affordability and reliability”. How obvious a policy.

Immigration

Kenny also rightly argues that Turnbull should adopt a “more conservative stance on immigration, injecting some nuance into a polarised debate while recognising some of the strains and acting to address them. He should ease back on numbers, act on integration difficulties and do more to spread the burdens and benefits around the nation”. Abbott has of course already advocated a major cut.

John Stone has also responded to Greg Sheridan’s surprising critique in last Saturday’s Weekend Australian on the supposed “decisive turn by conservatives and some of their icons against a substantial immigration program”. “Destroying our immigration program”, he said, “would be a step … to national suicide”. Stone rightly rejects the“destruction”image of conservatives and concludes that, while “ Sheridan is right in saying that Australians have always understood … that population and immigration are matters of national security”, he fails to face up to the criticisms of the program inherent in the two words “culture” and “compatibility” (see Stone on Sheridan which was published in The Spectator after being rejected by The Australian failing to find room).

Energy Policy

The centre piece of Turnbull’s energy policy is the National Energy Guarantee (NEG). Last weekend Environment and Energy Minister Frydenberg had an article covering this and related matters and I have attempted unsuccessfully to have some views on it published. Attached is a copy of the last letter I submitted (Turnbull Energy Policy). This includes a question as to how much usage of coal will be part of NEG and whether there will be a guarantee (both Turnbull and Frydenberg have said there will be a place for coal). The so-called experts constructing NEG promised to have details of the scheme some months ago, but nothing definitive has appeared.

Meantime, sceptic expert Alan Moran has published various analyses which suggest that there appears to be no threat of dangerous global warming. These include the absence of any significant increase in European temperatures since 500 BC and the conclusion by three expert US climate scientists that “… the historical and geological record suggests recent changes in the climate over the past century are within the bounds of natural variability” and“projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose. As a result, rising levels of CO₂ do not obviously pose an immediate, let alone imminent, threat to the earth’s climate.”The analyses by these scientists have been used as part of their defence by large oil companies who have been taken to court by believers in GW at Oakland, San Francisco, et al.

These and other (Australian) expert climate scientists would provide useful analyses for a report commissioned by the Federal or State governments here on possible policy changes.