Institute for Private Enterprise » Greens

Coalition Remains in Serious Trouble

Des Moore — Fri, 01 Mar 2019 01:34:30 +0000

Newspoll & Subsequent Policy Announcements Suggest Coalition Still in Serious Trouble

Due to a major technical problem which put my computer out of action for two days (possibly caused by a hacker I was advised) I am now in a catch-up position in regard to circumstances where numerous pre-election statements have been floated around by both major sides of politics. It has almost seemed like a new policy per day, which seems unlikely to have attracted votes because of the limited attention by the Coalition to explaining benefits. One commentator even described Morrison as a Muppet and, despite his increased media appearance, it is difficult to see a closing of the polling gap next time.

The February Newspoll left the Coalition on a 47/53 TPP for the third successive time and showed a fall in Morrison’s net satisfaction rate from minus 2 to minus 4 (Shorten’s also fell to a similar extent). This polling occurred despite expectations that Labor would be adversely affected politically over the passage of the Medivac bill instigated by Labor/Phelps/Greens and passed because the government had lost its control of the lower House. This legislation allows refugees and asylum-seekers to be fast-tracked to Australia for medical treatment on the orders of two doctors and involves an effective loss of border control decisions by a Minister, although the concern seems more about what would be likely to happen under a left wing Labor government than about the exploitation of the Medivac.

In fact, instead of a Labor win, Morrison appears initially to have instigated a favourable course of action by announcing that existing asylum seekers on Manus/Nauru will be transferred to Christmas Island and this initially secured approval from Shorten. However, Shorten has since backed away from his “approval” and it is not clear if the possible “misuse” of the legislation can be made there too.

That aside, Morrison has responded to pressure from within the Coalition, and of course from Labor’s accusations (and from some media “experts”) that it is taking no action on climate change or to fulfill its undertaking to reduce electricity prices. Morrison has apparently decided to make various day by day announcements designed to convey the impression that action is being taken. But the measures announced would be unlikely to involve any significant reduction in prices (unless accompanied by increased subsidies) and are suddenly focused on increasing the Coalitions’ reliance on renewable as a major part of its CC policy, viz

“the Prime Minister said the government’s support for big hydro projects was vital and economically prudent, as Australia’s energy market “continues to transition towards renewables”. “If you want to have a renewables future, you’ve got to have big batteries like this, and the commercial element of that is quite compelling and that’s what the numbers so far have shown,” he said. “We get the economic harvest, we get the jobs harvest, we get the energy harvest, and we get the renewable and the sustainable energy harvest that delivers on our environmental commitments.” The opposition said the government’s commitment to hydro power “only make sense under Labor’s renewable energy policies” (see Morrison Announces More on Renewables).

However, in the same article Energy Minister Angus Taylor claimed the new energy efficiency measures would cut energy bills while lowering carbon emissions. “We know that businesses and community groups are struggling under the weight of high power prices,” he said. “That’s why we’re taking strong steps to ensure they get the practical support that they need to reduce their energy use without reducing productivity.”

True, the reduction in emissions from the (newly announced) shift to renewable would in themselves favour lower prices. But renewable additions would also add to costs (including of course the additional back-ups needed in case renewable are not available) and would be unlikely to lead to lower prices overall (see also Coalition Climate Policy).

It was particularly disheartening to see on Sky News that there was agreement amongst participant that Turnbull’s decision to expand Snowy Hydro was endorsed by Morrison as a major component of his latest climate change policy. No account seemed to be taken of the much higher cost of such expansion compared with the cost of producing the electricity using fossil fuels. As Judith Sloan points out, “were the electricity market not so distorted, there would not be any economic case for Snowy 2.0. The project has been around for many years and it never stacked up. The cost and the execution risk made it a complete non-starter. The fact the Coalition government refuses to unpick the distortions in the market, rather than adding to them by promoting Snowy 2.0, is a sad indictment of where energy policy has landed. And, by the way, for the sort of investment being devoted to Snowy 2.0, you could get several high efficiency, low emissions coal-fired plants” (see Sloan Says Snowy2.0 Fairy Story).

Many others have concluded that the Snowy2.0 should not be started but it seems likely that bureaucrats in PM&C and Environment have promoted the case.

In considering possible electricity price reductions, it is pertinent to note that under policies adopted by the various states in recent years (which have been based on the perceived need to reduce the usage of coal because of the supposed danger from higher temperatures):

The adoption of such policies has been a major contributor since 2010-11 to a trebling in average wholesale electricity prices, rising from about $30-40 per MM to about $80-110 per MM;
While businesses and households would be unlikely to have experienced similar such increases at the retail level (data for retail prices back to 2010-11 are not readily available), they would undoubtedly have increased since 2010-11 at a much faster rate than pre 2010-11;
The retail figures available for 2017-18 show an increase of more than 10% on the previous year according to figures published by theAustralian Energy Market Commission (AEMC), which was set up by the Council of Australian Governments through the Ministerial Council on Energy in 2005. In the current year the AEMC estimates a reduction of about 3% followed by another reduction of about 9% in 2019-20. The AEMC says the estimated falls since 2017-18 are “driven primarily by wholesale costs” but details of these estimated costs are not readily obtainable.
At this stage it is difficult to see any significant price reductions except by the Federal government establishing the Default price it has canvassed and by enforcing a maximum price at a lower level. Such a policy, said to be operated by regulation and claimed not to require legislation, would imply that there is inadequate competition in the current market and that seems to have been assumed in regard to the major generators. But no explanation has been given as to why the ACCC could not act to enforce competitive measures rather than the government itself establish a regulatory direct.

Minority Govt Problems; Over-rule Qld Labor’s Refusal on Adani Coal Mine

Des Moore — Sat, 16 Feb 2019 05:08:59 +0000

The Problem Facing Morrison’s Minority Government

In yesterday’s Commentary I drew attention to Labor’s success in forcing legislation through Parliament which allowed asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island to “doctor” themselves to Australia for treatment without ministerial approval (except for security reasons). I added that “it also remains to be seen how long he can run a minority government where there is an opposition which is able to force legislation right through Parliament and effectively change the Coalition’s policies on other matters too” .

I added that “there has already been a (failed) attempt today to establish a Royal Commission on some failure of access to disabilities and there will inevitably be a debate on aspects of the budget set to be presented in early April. That would provide Labor/Greens with opportunities to have amendments to the budget passed through Parliament not by the Coalition but by the Opposition”.

Some recipients of Commentary indicated that they did not understand my analysis and in particular my (and others) view that an early election might be called. Today we have an illustration of what I meant. A report in Weekend Australian reports that

Scott Morrison is on track for an unprecedented second defeat on a key piece of legislation within two weeks, with Labor “confident” of passing a small-business policy in an alliance with Greens and independents. The government was considering last night how to deal with another potential loss on the floor of the House of Representatives after it suffered the first defeat on legislation in nearly 80 years with the passage of Labor’s refugee medivac bill on Tuesday. The Prime Minister faces internal spotfires as rebel Nationals MPs threaten to support Labor’s small-business overhaul in a damaging move that could split the Coalition, test the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and undermine Mr Morrison’s authority (see More Challenges to Minority Government).

As Parliament is sitting again from 18-21 February before the budget there are likely to be further attempts to “govern” by Labor/Greens, including in regard to the alleged need for more “action” on climate change. Then there is the period after the budget but before the election when Parliament will again be sitting from 4-18 April and when more attempts at governing by Labor/Greens/et al would be likely to occur.

All this suggests that it would be in Morrison’s own interests to call an early election, not now but as soon as possible after the budget has been presented.

Qld Left Labor Runs The State & Is Stopping Adani Coal Mine From Starting

Readers will be aware that the Indian owners of the Adani coal proposal in Queensland have been seeking approval for 7 years and thought they had it only to find that the Queensland Labor government has made a last minute attempt to stop it by asking an active environmentalist to advise whether the risk to an endangered finch would be too great. He duly did so advise.

Today’s Weekend Australian reports that “an extraordinary alliance of industry, unions and councils were last night in talks to lobby for Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s intervention to save the project that promises thousands of jobs. The contentious review of Adani’s black-throated finch management plan was ordered by Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch’s department in December, just weeks after Adani announced it had funding for the mine. The findings of the review — chaired by Brendan Wintle, a Melbourne University academic associated with anti-coal activism — are set to delay construction of the mine, which cannot begin without state approval of the plan to protect the endangered bird. After Ms Trad yesterday called on Adani to “engage in the process” led by Professor Wintle, Adani chief executive Lucas Dow claimed the review’s “misinformed and conflicting findings” demonstrated the report was biased and must be scrapped. In a letter to the government, Mr Dow outlines five key areas where he says the review contradicts the previous evidence accepted by the Environment Department, which had workshopped the plan with the company over 18 months and seven drafts before it was submitted” (see Morrison Cautions on Adani)

Unfortunately, the best that Scott Morrison could respond yesterday was to caution “the state government against “playing games” with jobs in north Queensland, which already suffered high unemployment before it was ravaged by floods this month. “I think the people of Queensland are dealing with enough at the moment without having decisions to take away their jobs,” the Prime Minister said.“We support the mining industry. We want to see mining jobs and we want to be able to see projects stand on their two feet and be given a go on the basis of their commercial realities.”

Given the changeable voting in Queensland for federal elections Morrison should be weighing in much more strongly. My attempt failed to have published a suggested response published. However, that suggested response may be worth repeating here, viz

It is not surprising that Queensland’s Labor government has established an inquiry into the dangers from an Adani coal mine to a finch. As you point out, that government is controlled by the left-wing and the Premier is just a front ( “Labor can no longer pretend it supports Adani”, 15/2). And, as shown by its behavior in forcing Shorten to edge open border controls without proper ministerial decisions, the left-wing constitutes a real threat to governing Australia federally if constituents are fooled into voting Labor in May.

The Morrison government needs to find ways of attracting the attention of voters to what they are in for if Labor wins. One possible way of getting their attention would be to adopt the same strategy as Clive Palmer has in full scale adverts on TV and published media. Of course, by presenting such rubbish in such a way Palmer is now losing the attention of voters.

A Coalition adverts strategy would be structured to identify the many problems in the policies already announced by Labor, such as border openings, increases in taxation and unbelievable reductions in emissions by 2030. It is not too early to start a Palmer-like strategy now.

There are other possibilities, including asking a credit rating agency to examine Queensland’s rating. Queensland’s LNP opposition has undertaken to restore the AAA rating which Labor lost and it could play that role with Federal support. It might even be possible for the Federal government to use its external affairs power to approve the mine by saying it is important for Australia’s foreign relations with India and its foreign investment policy that it go ahead.

It is in the interests of the Morrison government, both economic and political, to do as much as it can to have the Adani mine started.

Border Controls; Early Election Now Likely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Policy

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

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

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

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

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).

Newspoll

Des Moore — Sun, 23 Sep 2018 22:36:33 +0000

Long Way To Go

It is now a month since the overthrow of Turnbull as Coalition leader and PM on August 24. Yet the latest Newspoll shows the Coalition now led by Scott Morrison (thanks to the initial challenge by Dutton) has lifted its two party preferred vote by only two percentage points, which still leaves it well behind Labor on 46/54 and behind its rating of 49/51 in mid-August prior to the spill. And less than on its July 2016 election win by one seat.

Its primary vote has recovered a bit more to 36/39 from 34/41 immediately after the spill and Morrison is categorised as Better PM at 45/32, which is fractionally better than immediately after the spill but lower than when Turnbull was leader back in July. Those “Uncommited” remain around 25 per cent.

Although the Coalition is still well behind Labor, some see Morrison’s energetic and friendly handling of issues arising during the period since he took office as indicating that the Coalition is on the road to at least recovering its polling position before the challenge to Turnbull was made in August. But even that would not be a winning position, given that the Coalition was then polling less than the 50.4/ 49.6 it had when it won by just one seat in the July 2016 election.

Arguably, Morrison also faces more problems than Turnbull did in July 2016. Some of those are self-imposed: such as his decision to retain as ministers a number who were Yes Men to Turnbull and, associated with that, his decision not to criticise some of the policies adopted by Turnbull or not adopted when they should have been. There is no doubt that some members of the Coalition continue to oppose any move away from Turnbullite policies, with July Bishop now publicly criticising the way she has been handled — despite her being offered by Morrison to continue in Foreign Affairs and Trade! Her overt resentment at the abandonment of Turnbull almost certainly also exists elsewhere in the Coalition and is supporting “bullying” accusations by some female MPs.

But if Morrison is to continue as leader he needs to indicate that, just as he has changed his mind on his opposition to the Royal Commission on Banking, he will be changing his mind on other policy issues. He has already handled the bullying issue well but he should not stop there. If he doesn’t make some explicit changes to Turnbull policies Labor will not only ask why Turnbull is not PM but why he (Morrison) is following the policies of the PM he opposed.

I have referred in particular in previous Commentary to energy policy and the contradiction between the Coalition policy of reducing power prices and that of retaining the policies of reducing emissions and encouraging renewables which will push prices up. Perhaps he is holding back from changing energy policies until after the Wentworth by-election on 20 October. But any major change in energy policy also has implications for State elections in Victoria in November and NSW in March 2019. What happens in those elections is important for the Federal elections and vice versa in regard to policies adopted by the Federal government which could help them too.

Is he going to hold back from such a change because of the fear of opposition of the Greens and, if so, how will he handle criticism of his failure to effect any significant power reductions?

There is a long way to go before Morrison reshapes the Coalition after Turnbull’s attempt to undermine it.

Turnbull Must Go Now

Des Moore — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 10:18:36 +0000

The combination of today’s Newspoll (another 49/51 TPP result for the Coalition) and the utter failure of the Turnbull government to come forward with a meaningful energy policy demands that tomorrow’s party room meeting vote for a change of leader. Turnbull has had his (second) chance 38 times and must go now even if that forces an election before Christmas.

In fact, that would give the new leader a chance to put together a Cabinet which comprises members who have a better understanding of the policies Australia needs. And to bring back some voters who have moved to prefer One Nation (up from seven to nine percentage points) or one of the other groups (up from eight to nine). A clean sweep is required.

The failure after two years to develop a meaningful energy policy even now demonstrates the inability of the present leader to depart from his Labor-lite approach to governing. Yet another poll shows 63 per cent give priority to keeping prices down and only 26 per cent give priority to meeting targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions Despite this potential election winner it is only in the last few days that the electorate been told that the new policy would include the underwriting by the government of investment in electricity generation that would, magically, ensure lower prices. But nobody knows how much of such investment or how much prices would fall! Suffice to say here that it is consistent with the Turnbull view of government, not with private enterprise view supposed to be the aim of the Liberal party.

The National Editor of The Australian, Simon Benson, has well summarized the situation in his opening sentences, viz

“The Turnbull government lacks policy coherence, party unity and remains crippled by a failure of political management. The consensus is that it is sleepwalking to likely defeat. The critical message from the electorate is this: the relative popularity of both leaders, or lack of it, is no longer the key driver of votes”.

But Andrew Bolt has probably put it best below.

Liberal MPs need to reject Turnbull’s ‘stupid’ scheme, writes Andrew Bolt

Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, August 12, 2018 8:32pm

“ATTENTION Liberal MPs. Tomorrow is when you start fighting or slouch to defeat. It’s when you stand against idiocy or be forever damned as sheep.
Tomorrow is when Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull calls a party-room meeting to tell you what you will do about the National Energy Guarantee.
But it must be the day when you turn the tables and say: enough.

Say no to this futile, pointless and expensive con — a global-warming scheme to cut emissions that this government pretends is a scheme to cut electricity prices instead.

Dear Liberals, no one buys that spin. We know your scheme has targets for cutting emissions but none for cutting prices.

And no matter how brilliantly the Prime Minister thinks his government is playing the politics of your NEG — an acronym and plan not one in a 1000 voters understands — you and I know the truth.

Voters are telling every pollster they are furious about soaring electricity prices. Expecting them to admire your NEG is like expecting an AFL Grand Final crowd to clap you for staging a game of tennis, instead.

What on earth are you thinking? Even if this scheme made sense, it would not cut prices this side of next year’s election. You’d just be telling voters to trust you to cut prices when they have no reason to.

At best, you’d simply create a global-warming scheme that the new Labor government will thank you for — and hang around your neck as one you wanted, too.
How does that make political sense?

But let’s now talk about the national interest.
Ask yourselves: why are you pushing a scheme to cut emissions when even Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, himself a warmist, admits we are so small that the difference any cuts would make to the climate is “virtually nothing”?

Why you are so determined to cut emissions when there has been next to no warming this century?
Why are you so determined to cut our tiny emissions under the Paris Agreement when the world’s three giants — China, the United States and India — have either pulled out or been allowed to increase their own emissions?
How do you explain your blind commitment to a Paris Agreement that under the best estimate — by Professor Bjorn Lomborg — would cut the world’s temperature by just 0.053C by 2100 — and only if every nation met its promises, which most won’t?

How do you explain to voters why you push global-warming schemes that have helped to close nine coal-fired power stations in six years, making power prices jump?
How do you explain to pensioners who cannot now afford to heat their homes that their sacrifice is worth it even though it makes no difference to the climate?
Why are you inflicting all this pain for zero gain? None of it makes sense.

Ministers argue that they need this compromise with Labor to finally give investors the “certainty” they need to invest again in more power stations, and invest with such added confidence that they take less in profits and pass on the savings to voters.
Dear me. Such naivety.

Where is the “certainty” in a NEG that will actually make it easier for the next Labor government to demand even bigger cuts to our emissions — 50 per cent, if you please, with its Greens allies demanding 100 per cent?

Dear Liberal MPs, all this is madness and I bet almost every one of you knows it. So why go along with it?

Some of you tell me you must, because rejecting this NEG would undermine your Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, a global-warming fanatic.

Despite surviving negotiations in Friday’s COAG meeting, the government’s National Energy Guarantee will face its next big test in the Coalition party room on Tuesday. A number of MPs have indicated they are willing to cross the floor over the contentious legislation. Shadow Energy Minister Mark Butler blames disunity in the Coalition for stalled energy talks.

But how can you undermine a dead man? I write this without knowing the results of today’s Newspoll, but you all know the weight of evidence suggests you have lost the election already.

You must change course.

If Turnbull can’t sell the kind of new policy you need — cutting electricity prices, not emissions — then find yourself a new leader who can. And if you lose the election anyway, at least you’ll be in better shape to fight the next.

You can say “I told you so” as Labor makes power prices even worse. But in the end, the choice is basic: did you really get into politics to make Australians suffer for nothing?

Please, this is the time for serious Liberal men and women to say no to stupidity. Just because everyone around you has lost their head is no reason for you to lose your own”.

Greens Policies & Labor’s Problem in Vic

Des Moore — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:29:03 +0000

Climate Change According to Greens

The Greens leader’s attempt to “explain” his party’s loss of votes in recent elections has led him down a track which could result in his displacement as leader. His response has been to bring back into public debate the extremist view of Greens that climate change causes many of the problems which society faces. On this occasion the problem is bushfires and the alleged failure of the Turnbull government to take sufficient action to reduce CO2 emissions.

This thesis has led to its ridiculing in a spate of letters (see Letters on Greens), including one by me which is below and an editorial in The Australian saying that “Senator Di Natale and his party have shown they lack the policies and expertise to make a constructive contribution to the nation” (see Editorial on Greens). Andrew Bolt goes further in describing the Greens as “vultures” andpointing out that “nothing Australia could do would make any measurable difference to temperatures. We’re just too small, making up only 1.3 per cent of the world’s emissions. What’s more, satellite data shows the world’s temperature last month was just 0.2 degrees above the average for the past 30 years. What tiny part of that tiny warming (some of it natural) could we have changed by cutting our emissions even more? And what difference would that have made to the fires? So Di Natale is either a liar or a fool, in my opinion” (see Bolt on Greens).

However, the best Turnbull could manage was to say “Look, I’m disappointed that the Greens would try to politicise an event like this. I mean this has been shocking destruction of property … Thank heaven there have been no lives lost, but that’s a great tribute to the community, to the firefighters, to all of that preparation and resilience. But this is not the time to politicise a disaster like this”. Environment Minister Frydenberg has issued no press release on the attitude of the Greens.

In fact, it is an opportunity to use exactly what The Australian and Bolt have done. But Turnbull and his ministers have so locked themselves into emissions reduction policies that they find it difficult to criticise even the green extremists – because they are adopting policies which are not all that different!

Di Natale Misses the Point on Reasons for Bushfires

(Letter Published in The Australian, 22 March, 2018. Square bracketed bits deleted by Ed)

Having lost the Batman by-election, and lost votes in the South Australian one, the Greens are desperately searching for ways to bring back voters. Hence, you report that their leader Di Natale has seized on the bushfires recently experienced to blame the federal government’s failure to address climate change and allowing conditions conducive to [hurricanes and] bushfires (“Greens fire up climate row”, 19/3).

[Instead,] he suggests, we need more usage of renewable energy, the high use of which was the main reason why Labor lost the South Australian election! That aside, [even] the last IPCC report in 2014 said its modeling concluded that “it’s likely the number of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged”.

It is highly unlikely that increased usage of renewable would lead to reduced hurricanes and bushfires. The most likely cause of the latter is the increased restrictions on clearing which Greens support and which was a [major] cause of the dreadful Tathra fires.

How Labor won the 2014 Victorian Election

It is not often that I agree with the editorials in The Age. But with the heading “ Andrews’ ALP guilty of taxpayer fraud”, today’s editorial is different in including a statement that “Premier Daniel Andrews and his government … have transgressed too often”. It is making this statement following the report by the Victorian Ombudsman on the strategy used by Labor in the 2014 election.

This involved the hiring of 5500 “volunteers”, known as the red shirts, who organised door-knocking and phone bank operations and were paid about $390,000 from 21 Labor MPs’ public accounts for staff allowances. Andrews says that this money has now been paid back from Labor funds and that this makes it all OK. But the Andrews government also spent about $1.0 mn trying, through a legal action in the High Court, to stop the Ombudsman from making her report (see further in How Andrews Won 2014 Election).

Bolt argues that this “Disgrace is too hard to swallow” (see Bolt on Labor’s win in 2014) and it is difficult to see that the government can get away with doing nothing further, even in its own interests with an election in November. One media report suggests that Attorney General Martin Pakula should fall on his own sword.

While elections have different backgrounds, this event must increase the chances of a win to the Victorian Liberals. It could also help lift the chances of the federal Coalition even under Turnbull.

The First Week

Des Moore — Fri, 09 Feb 2018 21:48:36 +0000

Joyce

Parliament’s first week back after the summer break witnessed quite a bit of excitement, with Deputy PM Joyce leading the way or should I say presenting a new partner and, at the same time, making sure that 7.30 (and those watching) know that it’ a “private matter”. The following extract from today’s Cut and Paste certainly shows Joyce at full throttle

“Well, Leigh, what I want to do is make sure that private matters remain private … I don’t think it profits anybody to drag private matters out into the public arena … it’s a private matter … I will keep private matters private … salami slicing of a private life … private matters should remain private and that’s part of my private life … private matters remain private and I’m going to keep my private life private …”

Of course, it isn’t just a private matter when the Deputy PM and Leader of the National Party decides to change partners, the more so as it is reported to have been known around the traps for some time but somehow “the media” decided not to mention a word. Amazing – one wonders how many other VIPs’ private matters are being kept “secret”.

Voters (and particularly members of the relevant party)are surely entitled to know if those they have elected have become constrained in carrying out their roles because of illness, serious financial difficulties, or serious family problems. The importance of the latter is illustrated by those senior MPs and business leaders who resign from their positions and quite frequently say “I have to spend more time with my wife and family”. Joyce will doubtless say that he has been working hard but could it have affected his judgement on policy, even intra Nationals, issues?

Even though Nationals must have been concerned about Turnbull’s consistent poor polling,it has certainly been difficult to detect any hint from Joyce of a difference between the two parties on issues such as climate change where one might expect rurals to be more skeptical. Joyce’s popularity within the Nationals may also have suffered because of his role in moving fellow National Darren Chester out of ministerial responsibility for transport and infrastructure, and out of Cabinet completely, in the pre-Christmas Cabinet changes.

Turnbull on Tax Reform

Some may have been expecting that, after the two months summer break, the Turnbull government would be announcing new policies or at least significant variants of existing policies. But, on the key issue of tax policy, what has emerged is uncertainty. In question time Turnbull accused Shorten of being a “job-destroying, business hating populist” for opposing company tax cuts and in effect he fell back to Plan B by switching to cuts in personal income tax for the May budget. But here the Coalition’s promise of returning to a budget surplus by 2021 provides scope for only limited tax reductions unless major cuts in spending can be effected. These show no sign of emerging. In fact, additions to spending on child care and on subsidies for (of all things) arms exporters have occurred.

Turnbull will in any event find Labor (and some in the Senate) also opposing reductions for those in the high income brackets. As the election gets closer it appears that the scope for making promises which affect the budget, and the scope for promises, is diminishing unless Turnbull can adopt a more aggressive role on spending.

Workplace Relations

One of the Cabinet changes made before Christmas was to move Michaela Cash to Jobs & Innovation and to make Craig Laundy responsible for what was her responsibility, Workplace Relations. This appears to be something of a downgrade for workplace relations and a confirmation that Turnbull will not attempt major changes in the regulatory system and the excessive role played by unions. Although Laundy has now indicated that he intends to seek changes to the regulations, that would be within the Fair Work system. And, although he has three workplace bills before Parliament which would give the government more power over unions and union officials, it is unlikely that the Senate will pass them.

An important policy issue here is also the minimum wage, which the Minister and the PM need to be on top of (surprisingly the Treasurer seems to have little to say on IR). Last week Shorten called for a large increase hourly pay for low income workers –adding that “the minimum wage is no longer a living wage”.”Our goal should be a real, living wage – effectively raising the pay of all Australians, particularly the 2.3 million who depend upon the minimum rates in the awards,” he said (see Minimum Wage). The reality is that raising the wage of lowly skilled workers not only risks lowering their employment levels. Under present Fair Work distribution rules, it also means the so-called minimum will be paid to people who are also in households well up the income scale. As expert analyst Mark Wooden (professor at the Melbourne Institute) points out in the attached, “Almost 44 per cent are in the top half of the income distribution, and only 16 per cent are in the bottom quintile.” So much for the minimum wage.

Greens Need to be Rebutted

Shorten’s proposal for establishing a “real, living wage” reflects the far left policy adopted by UK Labour leader Corbyn to “help those who are left behind” and have the government playing a much bigger role in society. Such policies form part of the policies adopted by the Greens in Australia. Their attitude has sprung to attention by the astonishing attack by Greens MP Adam Bandt on new Senator Jim Moran, a retired major general who led Australian and US forces against Islamic extremists in Iraq. According to Bandt, Moran is a “complete coward” (and a few other similar epithets).

Bandt’s remarks, and those of his leader’s Di Natale, indicate the threat to society that would result if the party (which gets about 10% of votes) manages to influence policies adopted by the two big parties. In fact it has already had a direct influence through the rainbow coalition with Gillard when she was PM and, desperate to stay in government, agreed to a carbon tax (see this excellent article on Kenny on Greens). And it has been able to influence outcomes in the Senate.

Now that the outlandish views of the Greens have been exposed there is an opportunity for Turnbull to take the matter further and benefit the Coalition. Although the Coalition is unlikely to win the by-election on 17 March in the Batman electorate (just north of Melbourne), it should nominate a candidate on the basis that he will seize every opportunity to expose the faults in the policies of the Greens, who have been thought to have a good chance of winning (the seat was held by Labor). The fact that this is a possibility is an indication of the failure of liberal views to be exposed and spread by both federal and state Liberal parties. A launching of the program of a Coalition candidate for Batman could be the start of a revival of the polling for the Coalition.

Of course, that requires improvements in policies presently advocated by Turnbull. Some are mentioned above; others have been explained in earlier Commentary.

Trump’s Polling Improving

A report by Breitbart refers to the latest Rasmussen poll showing that Trump’s job approval rating is at 48 percent, about 4 percentage points higher than Obama’s at this time in his own presidency. A smaller percentage disapproved of the job being done by Trump (see this document which is titled Media Fail: Trump More Popular than Obama at This Point in Presidency).

The magazine, which is of course pro Trump, portrays this as “a massive failure for the American media.” Much the same can be said about most of the Australian media, particularly the ABC and SBS, in their treatment of Trump.

Also, as mentioned in my previous Commentary, with cuts in taxes and increased spending Trump faces major fiscal and debt problems. This in turn is pushing up market interest rates and the Fed may also raise official rates. Similarly, the share market, already down about 10%, is almost certain to fall further.

Newspoll Shows Coalition Stuck on Low Rating

Des Moore — Mon, 09 Oct 2017 04:40:24 +0000

Quarterly Newspoll Offers No Coalition Improvement

The (normally) two weekly Newspoll on 25 September showed the Coalition’s TPP had fallen by 1 percentage point to 46/54. Today’s Newspoll is a quarterly one that shows the TPP at 47/53 but this is the same as the previous two quarterly ones and, while Turnbull’s performance improved from 33 to 35 “satisfied”, Shorten’s “satisfied” also improved (from 32 to 34). Turnbull’s rating as PM fell fractionally to 43 (from 44) while Shorten’s stayed at 32.

Although it is not clear whether there will be another two weekly Newspoll next week before Parliament resumes, it is possible that if held it will show an improvement from the 46/54 on 25 September. However, as discussed below, the handling of policy issues by Turnbull since then does not suggest any such improvement. The Australian’s political correspondent draws attention to the Coalition’s TPP improvement in the Five Capital Cities (from 46/54 to 47/53) but suggests that this may be offset by the drop outside those cities (from 48/52 to 46/54). Such a drop might reflect the difficulty of distinguishing between Turnbull and Joyce on policy issues.

Common sense suggests that a Coalition led by Turnbull will lose the next election.

Some Recent Coalition Policy Issues

While it looks as though the SS plebiscite will allow Turnbull to claim it supportive of his Yes view, the polling of it so far suggests the final count may produce less than expected Yes’s (possibly less than 60%). The handling of it by Turnbull also left a negative impression arising from his failure to announce before the pleb started what legislative protection would be provided for religious views expressed by No voters if it is passed. The full page critical media advertisement on this by former PM John Howard (who about ten years ago urged Turnbull not to resign) also points to a strengthening in the so-called conservative view amongst Coalition supporters.

True, Turnbull would have benefitted Coalition polling by securing the unanimous agreement of state leaders to improve national security by inter alia boosting the facial recognition technology data base (see COAG Meeting on National Security). Turnbull told the Premiers that

“by agreeing to bring this together into the one database, into a means of operating together in real-time, it will enable our police, our security services to give an even better level of protection by being able to identify persons of concern, people who are suspected of terrorist offences or terrorist plots in real-time. It is a very important 21st century tool”.

But whether holding a full scale COAG meeting in Canberra was necessary is moot (one commentator described it as possible the quickest COAG meeting ever). Following the Las Vegas killings the environment was already conducive to increasing the power of the central government to limit such outbursts by crazed citizens or terrorists. Note however that, while gun control was not discussed at the meeting, Opposition leader Shorten claimed that estimates by law enforcement experts indicate “there are up to 600,000 illegal guns on our streets. This is just far too many. And research has shown there are more guns in Australia now than prior to Port Arthur. We need more action to get guns off our streets and throw gun runners in prison for life.” Fortunately, Australians are much less inclined to have “shoot-outs” than Americans, whose loss of large numbers during the civil war still influence thinking there about the need for guns.

Energy Policy & The Missing Text of Agreement on Gas

Turnbull’s continued failure to announce any coherent Energy Policy would also have contributed to poor polling.

True, an agreement was concluded with three exporters of gas that they would provide sufficient gas to the domestic market to prevent a shortfall in estimated demand in 2018 and Turnbull isued a press release after that meeting (see Heads of Agreement 3 October 2017). However, the so-called agreement provides nothing more than a vague commitment and contains no detail about possible prices or quantities, which are of course related to each other. My attempts to obtain the text of the agreement have failed and I have been told that no text will be released.

This missing text seems passing strange particularly as Turnbull says in the press release that the “commitments are vitally important to ensure Australian jobs and to ensure Australians have affordable and reliable energy and including electricity – gas being a more important fuel than ever in the generation of electricity”. It also leaves unanswered the question as to what effect the agreement is likely to have on prices. According to a report in The Australian, the commitment is to provide “reasonably priced gas”but it appears that prices “remain well above historic levels” (see OZ on Gas Agreement).

It is likely that when Parliament resumes on16 October the Opposition will seek more details of the agreement and further argue that its policy of imposing a system of export controls should be adopted. But such a policy would fail to recognise that the “shortage” of gas arises importantly from the reduced supply of power from coal-fired generators as these generators are closed because of Australia’s policy of reducing emissions of CO2. About ten of such generators have now closed, and a report in today’s Australian suggest there is a danger that a large generator in NSW is under closure threat.

Yesterday Turnbull accused the Victoria of contributing to the gas shortage because of that state’s restrictions on investments in gas (there is a total ban on fracking), to which Premier Andrews responded by claiming that existing gas investments in Victoria have an ample supply for Victoria (see Turnbull on Gas and Andrew’s on Vic’s Gas Supply). There seems no doubt, however, that the states’ restrictions on gas investments are reducing supply and as a result are keeping prices higher than they otherwise would be. Yet Turnbull is again refusing to seriously consider reducing grants to states that are holding back investments in gas.

An Environment Week Ahead?

The foregoing indicates that whether involving energy policy generally or just gas policy the energy issue will continue to be widely debated over the this week. Contributors to that debate will be the AFR’s National Energy Summit in Sydney (which will involve Frydenberg, Shorten, Weatherill, Finkel and AGL’s CEO) and the address given by Tony Abbott in London to the sceptic UK Think-Tank started by former UK Treasurer Nigel Lawson. Yesterday’s AFR editorial (see AFR on Costs of Regulations of Emissions) identified some of the failures of past policies by arguing that

“What is depressingly clear however is that carbon war politics has got in the way of rationality every time. Those wars intensified when Australia under Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and the Greens chose the wrong role to play in the global decarbonisation drama. A carbon-dependent economy with only a small carbon-emitting population could not lead the way with the world’s highest carbon tax without inflicting a lot of cost on itself for very little global return. And it meant ignoring Australia’s natural comparative advantage as an exporter of clean gas and relatively clean coal to much bigger emitters than ourselves, like China and India” (my emphasis).

But the editorial failed to advocate that, “rationally”, there needs to be a marked reduction, preferably elimination, in the target for reducing emissions of CO2 as well as in the target for increasing the usage of renewable, which are now being recognised as both unreliable and expensive once account is taken of the back-ups that are required because of their unreliability. I have no knowledge what Abbott will say in London tonight (UK time), and I recognise that he has made some poor decisions in the past. But he seems to be one of few leading politicians prepared to acknowledge past mistakes and to move on. He may be Australia’s only hope now of saving us from the looming disastrous energy policy.

Bolt on Turnbull, Important New Rebutalls of Climate Policy, AFR Off-Track

Des Moore — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 23:34:03 +0000

Next week is the last for Parliament before it takes a month’s break. Turnbull will be trying to divert attention away from “difficult” issues, such as the Finkel Blueprint, Turnbull’s attack on Trump during a speech at the Winter ball, and the publication of a book in which the author claims that Turnbull told him he joined the Liberals only because Labor wouldn’t have him(see Bolt on Turnbull & Finkel).

Bolt on Turnbull

Andrew Bolt says that, in addition to wanting “a new carbon tax plus higher taxes to pay for Labor’s NDIS” …Turnbull is reportedly even offering the Greens $5 billion more spending on Labor’s Gonski plan: The Turnbull government is set to spend billions of dollars to pass school funding reforms next week. Sky News can confirm that the Turnbull government is in talks with the Greens to boost the $18 billion in extra cash over 10 years. The deal will include a new independent body to set schools’ funding in Australia, but could include boosting the additional funding allocated by $5 billion or more”. If correct, this would confirm Turnbull as a Labor/Greens man.

AFR Off-Track

In similar vein, AFR political editor Coorey uses Cory Benardi’s support for ousting Turnbull in 2009 (“for wanting to cut a deal with Labor on carbon pricing, a move that would have settled energy policy then and there”) to indirectly attack Abbott. Coorey claims this “sliding door moment, which led to the leadership of Tony Abbott and the destructive policy approach that followed, is pretty much why we are where we are today”. According to Coorey, “the trouble is that politics acts like a sea anchor by refusing to give industry the policy certainty it craves so it can make long-term investment decisions without the fear that another former student politician will become prime minister and blow the show up”.

He acknowledges that “this week showed that guaranteeing that certainty remains far from assured” but, without offering any analysis of Finkel’s Blueprint, shows where he stands viz, “Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has done a good job in commissioning Alan Finkel to come up with a policy that offers a way through the political impasse. Frydenberg, who has sufficient personal energy to power a small city, has also corralled just about every relevant industry chief executive officer to get off the fence and speak in favour of a Clean Energy Target. The biggest challenge remains the conservative right, people who pay lip service to climate change because they feel they have to, but do not believe emissions mitigation should be a driver of energy policy” (see Coorey on Turnbull & Finkel).

Such commentary has become typical of the AFR, which offers limited analysis of the adverse effects on business of government interventionism. We await the breaking of the political impasse which Coorey attributes to Finkel.

New Science Assessment on Climate

It is timely that a group of scientists has published in the US an assessment of a large number of deficiencies in analyses which support the dangerous warming thesis. They draw on criticisms made by Professor Rafael Reif, president of MIT, of President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Climate Accords. Their conclusion is that “By withdrawing from the Paris agreement, President Trump did a wonderful thing for America and the world. He showed that advocacy masquerading as science should not be the basis for political decisions. He showed that to put America first is to put the planet first. And, by rejecting the non-problem of man-made global warming, he began the long and necessary process of waking up the likes of Professor Reif to the fact that the diversion of time, effort, and trillions of dollars away from real environmental problems and towards the bogus but (to MIT) profitable non-problem of supposedly catastrophic global warming is as bad for the planet as it is for true science”.

While written by scientists, the text is easy reading and, without understanding every point made, I recommend it. The biography of the leader of the group, Willie Soon, can be found here.