Institute for Private Enterprise » Fairfax

Ispos Poll Shows Big Improvement in Coaliton Polling

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

Has the Tide Really Turned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turnbull Can No Longer Be Accepted As a Liberal

Des Moore — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 03:38:03 +0000

Morrison Could Now Distance Himself From Turnbull

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dutton’s Exposure of Turnbull

Des Moore — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 21:57:31 +0000

More on Dutton’s Exposure of Turnbull Problem

In last Sunday’s Commentary I pointed out that, while in August Dutton challenged Turnbull for the leadership he did not really spell out the reasons for doing so, but Dutton had now covered much more ground than any former Cabinet minister has done since Turnbull’s departure in an article published that day written by a journalist. In particular that the Coalition would have lost 25 seats under Turnbull and that he was all talk and little action (see Commentary 30/12).

Yesterday I received a comment from Quadrant Ed, Roger Franklin, who indicated that he had “excerpted your latest bulletin’s thoughts on Dutton and Turnbull and used them as the day’s Essential Reading item at Quadrant online”. Franklin added “Can Morrison really lack the nous to draw a heavy black line under the Turnbull catastrophe? Or is it that he lacks the courage to face down a Banks-style mutiny?” (see RE:thanks).

Today The Australian has published a number of letters on the exposure issue, including mine as lead letter (see Letters in Australia (1/19)). My letter showing edits is below.

Dutton simply said Libs couldn’t win under Turnbull

Letter published in The Australian, January 1, 2019 (Bits in square brackets deleted by Ed)

The significance of Peter Dutton’s exposure of the problems experienced by the Coalition under Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership has received a limited understanding.

Your editorial rightly points to Turnbull’s failure to “seize opportunities to hammer the opposition” (“A political year of turmoil with uncertainty ahead”, 31/12). But Dutton also said that under Turnbull “the Liberal Party had become unrecognisable to our supporters and people who had voted for us for years had switched off”. This led to 38 unfavourable Newspolls [in a row] and meant the Coalition would not have been re-elected.

The decks are now cleared to develop policies that [more widely] distinguish Scott Morrison’s Coalition from Turnbull’s imposed policies. Morrison has already modified energy policy from being the “greatest moral challenge of our time” to one that can have a more believable scientific base. If Morrison can reduce electricity prices that could be an election winner. [He has also recognized the threat from the Islamic sources to which Turnbull kow-towed to an extent].

[Morrison should now move to distance himself from the advice Turnbull obtained from the public service, particularly on energy policy].

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Regrettably, The Herald Sun’s editorial yesterday failed to understand the basic reason for Dutton’s exposure and argued that “the blunt comments could well have been avoided had Mr Dutton chosen to bat away questions about the coup which he helped lead but in which he failed in his own bid to secure the prime ministership”. It also published a brief article claiming that “Liberal MPs across the country continued to privately express their fury at Mr Dutton’s comments this week outlining why he tried to topple Malcolm Turnbull”.

Why Dutton did so should be obvious to existing Coalition MPs and to an editor of the Herald Sun : with Turnbull as leader they had no chance of winning the election. With a new leader they have some chance of doing so provided Morrison gets his energy, immigration and budgetary policies etc on the right track. There is no evidence to suggest that Dutton was making another attempt to be leader.

The importance of having a more believable scientific base for global warming is reflected in contrasting existing Coalition and Labor policies. As pointed out in my Commentary of 22 December, the Morrison government has announced that it will carry-over emissions credits from under the first and second Kyoto agreements to help meet the 2030 target of a 26% reduction in carbon emissions set by Turnbull in Paris.

In total, Australia’s carbon emissions in 2030 would now be only 7% lower than in 2005 but this would be in accord with the 26% lower target. Although that will still require further reductions in emissions between now and 2030, it will be much less than if the 26% reduction was followed. The Coalition is now in a much better position to contrast its policy with the 45% reduction adopted by Labor for 2030. In particular, it will give the Coalition scope to argue that its policy will have a relatively small adverse affect on the economy/international competitiveness compared with Labor’s policy.

In the meantime, the Fairfax press in conjunction with warmists in the Bureau of Meteorology are continuing to present to the public a misinterpretation of the significance of temperatures recorded for 2018. They present this as “for mean temperatures, 2018 will also come in among the top five” on record for Australia. And “for the globe as a whole, 2018 is likely to be the fourth-warmest year on record, continuing the recent pattern of very warm years,” the bureau said. Temperatures are now about 1.1 degrees above the pre-industrial norm. That’s more than half way to the 2-degree upper limit of warming almost 200 nations agreed to work towards under the Paris climate agreement signed in 2015” (see SMH on Climate in 2018).

But no explanation is provided as to what caused the increase since the so-called “pre-industrial norm”. This is not the place to delve into detailed analysis but an important omission from the explanation of the higher temperatures is that they significantly reflect natural not human influences. As such they are not “half way” to any dangerous global warming caused by usage of fossil fuels by humans. This and other failures to properly explain the higher temperatures should be corrected by the Morrison government.

Morrison Changes CChange Policy

Des Moore — Sat, 22 Dec 2018 07:04:00 +0000

A Breakthrough on CChange Policy?

It would be premature to claim a breakthrough in the Morrison government’s climate change policy. But a potential starting point may have been made with its decision to count carried-over emissions credits from under the first and second Kyoto agreements to help meet the 2030 target of a 26% reduction in carbon emissions set by Turnbull in Paris. What this seems to mean is that energy section emissions will now have to fall by only 17 per cent, while transport and agriculture emissions are actually forecast to continue rising until at least 2030.

In total, Australia’s carbon emissions in 2030 would be only 7% lower than in 2005 but this would be in accord with the 26% lower target. That will still require further reductions in emissions between now and 2030 but much less than if the 26% reduction was followed. If Morrison sticks with this “new” policy, the Coalition would be in a much better position to contrast its policy with the 45% reduction adopted by Labor for 2030.

In particular, it will give the Coalition scope to argue that its policy will have a relatively small adverse affect on the economy/international competitiveness compared with Labor’s policy. Although Labor has not said it will not use credits, Labor spokesman Butler commented that “It is clear the Liberals are burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the vast majority of Australians who are crying out for desperate action on climate change”. This suggests it will stick with its 45% reduction policy (see Morrison Uses Carbon Credits to Meet Target).

Of course, it would be much better if Morrison were to indicate that Australia will now not make any further emissions reductions, which it appears to have done in regard to transport and agriculture. There is an implicit acknowledgement here that those industries should not suffer any adverse economic effects. So, why not go the whole hog?

OZ Attitude on CC Also Seems More Flexible

Today’s Australian also seems to adopted a more flexible approach to CC policy. It does this in three ways.

First, it has published more letters which mostly question the science (sic) used to justify emissions reduction policies (see OZ Letters Complain on CChange “Science”). These included my letter as follows

A Failure to Explain Climate-change Link with CO2

Letter Published in The Australian on 22 December (Ed Deletions in Square Brackets)

You correctly point out that “Australia should not accept measures that would damage our economy for nugatory gains in climate mitigation” and that “too often there is a yawning gap between climate rhetoric and reality” (Editorial 21/12). [Too often too the rhetoric originates from the UN Chief you quote].

The missing reality is the failure of some climate scientists and politicians to examine whether the predicted effects of climate changes actually happen. [Yet ]since the year 2000, temporary increases aside, global temperatures have been relatively stable despite the strong increase in carbon emissions staying in the atmosphere. Temperatures also remained stable in the post WW2 period to the late 1970s in the face of increasing emissions. Where is the explanation of the apparent lack of a correlation between increases in carbon emissions and temperatures, which the rhetoricians claim?

This unanswered question suggests the [danger] threat from usage of fossil fuels has lost credibility and policies aimed at reducing emissions should be re-examined . Australian governments should not continue policies to reduce emissions unless climate scientists can explain the periods of relative price stability in the face of increasing emissions. As Doug Hurst wrote yesterday, “the best Christmas present we could give ourselves would be to accept reality and cancel our futile and wasteful renewables policies”.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Second, it supports the adoption by Morrison of past carbon credits as part of its policy of reducing emissions by 26% by 2030. This is an acknowledgement by The Australian that it does not see the need for Australia to adopt such a large reduction adopted under Turnbull. Even the Fairfax press seems to accept that it is legitimate to adopt “UN accounting rules … which are effectively turning it into a 15 per cent cut on 2005 levels” (The Age, 22/12).
Third, The Australian’s editorial says “it is reasonable to argue that by meeting its Paris commitments Australia is doing too much. It is entirely unreasonable to suggest we are not doing enough. Those who argue that global warming is a looming crisis — if they are interested in science and facts — can only conclude the crisis is escalating despite our costly efforts. Yet they argue to double down on this futility”. This again adopts a more flexible approach towards how to treat Climate Change policy in a world where it is increasingly evident that many other countries are not taking the dangerous threat seriously (see OZ Supports Use of Credits to Meet Targets).

The foregoing, together with other developments mentioned in my earlier Commentary, provides more hope that CC policies are moving in the right direction.

Victorian Election

Des Moore — Sun, 25 Nov 2018 04:05:10 +0000

Victorian Liberals Blood Bath

The extent of the Coalition’s loss in the Victorian elections far exceeds predictions in pre-election polling: it looks like a 5% swing against the Coalition which could mean they hold only 25 seats in a Lower House of 88 total seats and could lose 5 of their 16 seats in the Upper House, which has 40 seats. As such their capacity to constitute an effective opposition will be difficult, to say the least. The unanswered question is why such a loss has occurred particularly in the so-called sand-belt area on the east coast of Port Phillip bay which would include middle income groups.

There are numerous explanation for the large loss but there seems little doubt that the Victorian Liberal party under the leadership of Guy (who has been re-elected) failed to explain to the electorate what the Liberal Party stands for and how it distinguishes itself from Labor. For example, he apparently refused to have a debate on Sky News (which now broadcasts through Victoria) and this is reputed to have typified his attitude to media. By contrast Labor leader Andrews’ claim that Victoria under him became the “most progressive state” received attention on the ABC and the Fairfax press.

Guy failed to promote a view which, while agreeing that the state had an important role, also emphasised the importance of the private sectors in providing education, health and transport in particular as well, of course, as expanding the private sector economy, which is much bigger than the government sector. Guy could have made more of the strong economic and population growth in Victoria as reflecting the private sector’s initiatives. He could also have put in perspective Andrews claims of providing state education, health, etc services by pointing out that this is just what state governments are expected to do.

The Liberal Party’s “problems” at the federal level, particularly in regard to the dismissal of Turnbull as leader, would also have contributed to the loss of votes in Victoria. Turnbull’s deliberate undermining of the role of the Liberal Party, both during his leadership and after, undoubtedly caused a loss of “Liberal” voters, as shown in the continued poor polling while he was PM and the almost certain loss of the federal election if he had stayed. The take-over by Scott Morrison has however done little to help, partly because he has given the impression of agreeing with some of what Turnbull did and partly because he has not adequately explained his view on most major policy issues. These developments made it more difficult for Guy to promulgate policies at the state level. Morrison also made only one official visit to Victoria and spent considerable time during the election campaign taking a bus around north Queensland where no election is imminent.

Some Liberals (and the ABC) have argued that, with Michael Kroger as the elected head of the party, it has gone too far to the “right”. But as the failed Turnbull move to the left shows, this claim can scarcely be sustained. Rather, Guy should have moved to the right instead of trying to play down the middle or simply repeating what Andrews said. Shadow Attorney General Pesutto rightly complained that “something’s gone horribly wrong” as he watched the vote count narrow in his own seat of Hawthorn, which he has lost. He added “we’re going to clearly have to do a root-and- branch review, to bottom, of all of this… My own preference would be that the party needs to take urgent action to re-orient and get back on the right foot”. Whether he was using “right” to indicate a shift in the orientation of policies is not clear, but that is what is obviously needed.

As I pointed out in my previous Commentary of 22 November, this was particularly the case in regard to the mishandling of the terrorist threat and the Sudanese gangs by the Andrews government and, in particular, by Attorney General Pakula. An opportunity to use this “gift” to the Coalition was missed.

The one encouraging development from the election is that it appears that the Greens have lost seats in both the lower and upper houses. But this may be more a result of Labor’s attack on them and some self-inflicted wounds than criticism by Guy. Yet he had an opportunity to criticise the rise of electricity prices and the influence of the Greens but instead offered a subsidy.

Overall, whether at the federal or state levels this result is a reflection of the failure of the Liberals to distinguish themselves from Labor. Guy was a major offender and should not be re-elected as leader of the Victorian Liberals. The Newspoll due tomorrow is unlikely to show any improvement at the federal level and could raise questions about the federal leadership, which is already trying to say that the Victorian election was all about state issues (see Vic Election Result Has Federal Implications).

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).

Morrison Becoming a Hasty Decision-Maker

Des Moore — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 05:03:32 +0000

Polling Under Morrison Still Needs Big Improvement

Yesterday’s Commentary referred to a number of policy decisions and comments on policy positions made by PM Morrison which raised concern about the directions being taken by him and, in particular, whether his government is differentiating itself from the leftish Turnbull government to a substantive degree. The publication of an article in Spectator of 6 October by John Stone (see Stone on Morrison), and other developments, suggest the Morrison government does not seem at present to have the capacity to handle issues in a way conducive to attracting the electorate to the Coalition.

This concern has increased with the latest quarterly Fairfax poll published yesterday showing the Coalition still well behind on a TPP of 47/53 per cent. While this covers part of the period Turnbull was in power, and it is an improvement since the previous poll of 45/55, the headline to the accompanying SMH article – “huge road ahead of Scott Morrison and the Coalition” – is correct (see Fairfax Poll Shows Coalition 47/53). It seems likely that Monday’s Newspoll will also only show a similar improvement since its previous poll of 46/54 published on 24 September.

Stone’s DIS-CON NOTES

While acknowledging that “Morrison deserves some time to ‘prove’ himself”, Stone is critical of a range of decisions to date. These include the dumping of the decisions to raise to 70 the age at which the pension becomes available, the floating of a possibility of having an Aboriginal equivalent to Australia Day, and the acceptance of argument that adherence to the Paris climate accord be retained simply because it would otherwise offend Pacific Island governments. His DIS-CON NOTES also draw attention to the need to frame policies to handle forthcoming UN meetings which seek global control on immigration policy and the establishment of a legally binding treaty on reducing emissions and providing aid to developing countries of $US100 bn per annum to help with the alleged global warming threat.

Stone argues that the right decisions on these issues “will reassure all those Dis-Cons without whose votes he cannot win the next election” and he suggests other decisions which would help too:

Cut immigration by (say) 80,000 per annum, spread over the next two years; reject the Aboriginal industry’s presumptuous demand for a constitutionally imbedded ‘voice’ in the parliament; seek out a top quality businessman, with real media experience and a clear understanding of the ABC’s political bias, to appoint as its chairman; announce that the government will, if re-elected, move to abolish the Human Rights Commission.

Other Developments Which Need Urgent Attention

These include

A response to polling showing the once-safe seat of Wentworth is “on a knife-edge ahead of the October 20 poll” (see Wentworth Outlook) .
Ensuring that urgent attention is given by the Special Minister of State appointed by Morrison to examine the apparent over-spending on communications by minister Stuart Robert who Morrison re-appointed as a minister and is reported as being Morrison’s numbers man (see Stuart Robert).
An explanation by Morrison himself of whether the Australian Power Project CEO is correct in predicting a significant rise in gas/electricity prices in this summer and, if so, what he intends to do about it (see Power Prices Predicted to Rise).
Why Morrison has so brusquely rejected the offer by Shorten to discuss immigration policy (this is on Immigration Policybut Morrison has since rejected the offer in a “not worth considering” manner).
Whether Social Services minister Fletcher has responded correctly on the possible addition to budget spending under the NDIS scheme (see NDIS Threat to Budget)

The Process of Decision Making

This article by The Australian’s political editor, Dennis Shanahan, draws attention to the failures occurring in the political decision-making process and he quotes from a report by the IPA. The IPA finds there is “pressure for senior politicians in governments and oppositions to make decisions quickly and confidently to appear decisive, pander to populist ideas to appear responsive, manufacture wedge issues to distinguish themselves from their opponents, and to put a spin on everything to exaggerate its significance”.

Unfortunately, Morrison seems increasingly to be in the hasty-decision making category.

Government Policies/Advocacies

Des Moore — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:56:06 +0000

Today’s media contains reports which are of serious concern in regard to the capacity of governments and political leaders to operate or propound policies which are in the interests of communities considered as an entity rather than of particular groups. These are briefly described below and, except for two, the attachments.

Morrison Government Policies

I have already expressed some concern that the Morrison/Frydenberg government is portraying itself as too close to the Turnbull regime. This seems to be reflected in statements and policies which are now being made and/or implemented by those two. For a start, it is now reported that, instead of distinguishing his government from Turnbull’s, Morrison has in fact offered Turnbull in New York that some of his travel costs on “government business” could be met (see Turnbull’s Travel Costs Offered by Morrison). This comes on top of his acknowledgement of having frequent contact with Turnbull in NY.

And, although Morrison is attacked front page in the Fairfax press on failures (sic) to implement climate change policies or indeed to take them further (see Fairfax Attacks Morrison for Abandoning NEG), Fairfax overlooks his retention of emissions reductions and increased renewables while continuing, contradiction ally, to claim that power prices will be reduced and that he has appointed a minister to do this. No indication has been given as to what attitude the government takes to the IPCC report to be released on Sunday next and which is already reported to once again be endorsing the dangerous warming theory. This despite it being the umpteenth such report which has made incorrect temperature predictions and failed to attribute to reasons other than CO2 increases which may have caused temperature increases (see attached letter published in The Australian by expert analyst William Kininmonth on CChange).

As to the budget, the Australian’s David Uren notes that while “the Morrison government appears to have decided that budget repair is mission accomplished,

big spending decisions — the $4.6 billion fix for school funding and the $9bn fix for Western Australia’s GST — are unlikely to be offset by savings. There is still a drought package, a small business tax package and a federal election to come” (see Morrison/Frydenberg to Ease Budget Policy?). Yet while both Frydenburg and Morrison have acknowledged that new spending should be offset by savings, they do not give any undertaking of such action. Uren rightly concludes that “there should be a greater buffer against adversity in the budget before we start spending surpluses that are yet to arrive”.

As to the ABC, apart from the appointment of the very pro-ABC Ferguson as acting chair (for which there has been no explanation), Morrison seems happy that the inquiry by the Departmental head will provide a satisfactory basis for possible changes. Yet controversies continue about what actually happened to instigate the sacking of Guthrie and why Ferguson could not have been requested by the Minister for Communications to make obviously-needed changes as a condition of her appointment. In the attached article (ABC Stuck with Greenism) former Chair Maurice Newman identifies many but his reference to the failure to handle complaints (0.5% upheld !), and the rejection of an analysis by expert Meteorologist Bob Fernley-Jones, indicate the need for immediate change (and for there to be a change which would give credibility to the government).

As to foreign policy, the increased foreign activity by a China, now run by a Marxist who has “shuffled” leaders to centralized power in himself, requires much greater expressions of concern by Australia. This applies to inter alia a number of Chinese activities including in the South China sea. Defence Minister Pyne, who addressed a dinner I attended on Wednesday evening, said that Australia will be participating in an official group which will be sailing through the SC sea but did not say whether that group would accept any Chinese restrictions and what it would do if the Chinese acted as it did against a US ship (see Chinese Threaten US Warship).

Morrison’s attempt to explain that Australia has good relations with both the US and China fell short of what our foreign policy requires, which would include endorsement of US policy supporting independent nations and which recognises how important to us the US is militarily. Pyne mentioned that we have increased defence spending since the cut-backs under Labor and said the aim is to lift defence spending to 3% of GDP from the 1.9% aim in 2018-19. But we are small and the planned new subs have not yet been started and will not be ready until 2030.

This situation requires closer support of US defence/foreign policies, including the de-nuclear policies in regard to Iran, which has now attempted a bomb plot in France where the counter-government for Iran is situated (see France Threatened by Iran). The US describes Iran as “the world’s top sponsor of terrorism” and it has conducted terrorist activity in countries distant from itself. Australia should recognise and support the US policy on Iran.

Polling and Electricity Prices

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

Polling Gone Mad

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

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

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

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

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

Electricity Prices

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

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

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

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

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

Polling on Budget & Bad Assessments by Commentators

Des Moore — Sun, 13 May 2018 23:40:22 +0000

Today’s Newspoll shows the Coalition still behind Labor on third party preference votes by 49/51 and indicates that only 41per cent think the tax-cutting budget was “good”. But the improvement in Turnbull’s Better PM rate to 46/35, compared with the 38/35 at the previous Newspoll, has led The Australian to present the poll as a major victory to Turnbull, to argue that the budget was “one of the most well-received …in a decade”, and to claim “the result maintains an electoral position for the Coalition that it has not enjoyed since September 2016”. It also says the result “builds momentum” for the five by-elections expected in early July (see Newspoll Shows No TPP Change on Budget).

However, the absence of any “bounce” in the poll after the supposedly well-received tax cuts, shows Turnbull’s improved polling has not been translated into an improvement in Coalition polling. Interestingly, The Australian’s National Affairs Editor offers sound reasons why the improvement may include that “Turnbull has been less noticeable”, has “avoided a major self-inflicted political crisis”, and has stayed “on message for more than 48 hours”. In short, he was previously acting in ways, and making decisions, which detracted some support from the Coalition but his passing of greater responsibility to Morrison may have helped lift support for the Coalition.

There is also the fact that today’s Fairfax/Ipso poll shows Labor’s TPP vote to be even higher at 54/46 per cent and only 38 per cent thinking they are “better off”, with 35 per cent thinking they would be worse off. This 54/46 result is based on how preferences flowed at the last election, which differ from how Newspoll recently decided to take more account of preferences shown in recent State elections, including an indication that more One Nation voters have shifted to increased favouring of preferences for the Coalition. My inclination is to conclude that the Newspoll result/assessment shows more support for the Coalition than there really is and that vice-versa applies to Fairfax (see Fairfax Poll Shows Coalition’s Reduced TPP).

The surprising aspect of assessments made since the Budget is that few, if any, commentators have offered an accurate account of the budget’s effect and the rubbishy explanations of it by Morrison and Turnbull. My own view is that, on this occasion, the commentators have put too much emphasis on the benefits from the tax cuts and to the changes in the structure of the tax system, and have implied much larger amounts are involved. I have already published some analyses in my last Commentary but the key point is that, over the next four years, total income taxes are estimated to increase by 26 per cent (from $305.4 billion to $383.8 billion) and they would only have increased by $11-12 billion more if there had been no tax cuts. Looking at total taxes, the increase is 24.7 per cent (from $ 416 billion to $519.6 billion) and would have increased by only about 2 per cent more in 2021-22 if there had been no tax cuts.

In other words there is a miniscule cut proposed in taxes and, even if all passed in the Senate, that will have a miniscule effect on GDP and employment.

Through letters and my Commentary I have attempted to expose this but only Quadrant has published the Commentary and only the AFR has published my letter (see AFR Letters on Budget), which regrettably understates the estimated increase in the tax burden by 2021-22 at $20 billion when it should be about $100 billion!