Institute for Private Enterprise » IPCC

Commonwealth Budget 2019/20

Des Moore — Wed, 03 Apr 2019 08:53:18 +0000

Commonwealth Budget For 2019/20 Won’t Save The Bacon

Today’s Media has included many comments on the Morrison Government’s Budget for 2019-20 as well as estimates of revenue and expenditure for the following three years. These include a large number of decisions and it would not be appropriate here to examine them in any detail: indeed I challenge anyone to examine what one journalist described as “a budget speech littered with references to plumbers, couriers, cranes, hard hats, teachers, tradies and nurses”. My general conclusion on the speech I watched on TV was that it did not impress most on the Coalition benches and some of those there tended to drop off and, after a time, showed little encouragement as Frydenberg continued well after the half-hour finishing time allocated to budget speeches. In consequence, what my comments below mainly relate to are the totals of revenue, expenditure and what is commonly treated as the deficit or surplus for the four years.

But these need also to take account of the possible reactions to budget decisions on taxation and spending on capital projects which increasingly purport to extend beyond the four years. For instance, the Morrison government’s budget announcement included an addition of $25bn to the existing infrastructure program of $75bn which is spread over in ten years. This reflects the increasing involvement of the Commonwealth in what are (or should be) basically State matters including the congestion resulting from higher immigration but which the Federal government also believes it needs to be involved in order to attract votes. The result of the election in NSW, in which both the Liberal and National parties lost seats, led the Morrison government to publicise in the Federal budget its involvement in regional NSW. On tax, the difficulty in assessing the tax policy is that the second round of personal tax reductions will not start until 2022-23 and that is then reflected in a reduction in about half the estimated surplus for that year.

In interpreting the budget it is also important to realise the Coalition will face the election in May with electoral polling which indicates it is almost certain to lose. As such, apart from possibly indicating the Coalition’s budget as no more than a manifesto with which to start the election debate, the same applies to the manifesto which Shorten has announced. He is now further developing that by announcing yesterday the 50% compulsory electric cars by 2050, which has (rightly) been widely characterised as absurd. Shorten has also failed to indicate the costs of his environmental policies. This situation further widens the gap between the two parties on the issue of dangerous global warming which appears likely to be a major discussion item. Unfortunately, the Treasurer’s budget address re-stated the Coalition’s existing policy of reducing emissions as stated in Paris and announced a $3.5bn “climate solution package” apparently designed to soften the moderates within the Coalition. Another bad poll would provide the opportunity to moderate this policy but it looks as though such a moderation is not politically possible.

Yet it is reported today that three senior ministers, including Morrison, have decided over-night to add over $300mn to energy supplements and amend the budget the day after it was introduced!

In a situation of emergency one possible policy change on the environment might extend to pointing out that the prediction in temperatures by supposed climate experts has been three times higher than the actual increase in temperature as published by the IPCC. This failure of “scientists” to get anywhere near a meaningful prediction in temperatures indicates the need to urgently review the dangerous warming belief and provides a basis for at least moderating current policies (see advertorial Global Warming as published in today’s Australian by the Climate Study Group). This research indicates that the most highly likely warming over the period to 2100 does not justify the current expenditure by governments of squillions of dollars on reducing the usage of coal.

Following are my brief comments on the major items in the Budget:

Overall, there is no indication that the Morrison government aims to reduce the size of government. Estimated payments (ie expenditure) by the Federal government are about the same proportion of GDP throughout the four years covered by the budget (24.5 -24.6%). That is fractionally lower than in 2018-19 (24.9%) but that probably reflects a spending splurge in that year to reduce the amount to be allocated in the budget year. That is estimated at 25.2% of GDP, which is fractionally higher than in the last year of the Keating government in 1995-96 and is higher than in the last few years of the Howard government;
Treasurer Frydenberg (and Morrison) have claimed that the budget showed they had not increased taxation. But tax as a proportion of GDP is shown as slightly higher in 2019-20 than in the previous year (23.1%) and only fractionally lower in the last of the four budget years (2022-23) for what that may be worth. As there is no data readily available on the split between company and personal income tax, the increase in company profits may mean that personal tax proportion of GDP may have been reduced. But total estimated taxation in the current and next three years is the highest proportion of GDP since the final years of the Howard government in early 2000s;
As has been much acclaimed by the Treasurer and Morrison, after 11 years in budget deficits and a consequent increase in net debt, a surplus is estimated for 2019/20 (0.2% of GDP). But this is not a result that a government would normally boast about, which is probably why Frydenberg has limited his reference to the four year total. It is also exposed to possible minor adverse effects from reduced company profits due to falls in commodity prices. It’s good to be “back in the black” but the aim should be to achieve a much higher surplus and pay off more debt.

Overall this is a useful budget (a “B” perhaps) but it falls short of what is needed to avoid scattering spending to buy votes, to reduce debt and does not provide a bulwark against attack from serious adverse changes in economic conditions here or overseas. It does provide a test for whether Labor is prepared to maintain the aim or fall back to the deficits incurred by Rudd. Hopefully, the latter are so recent that Shorten will be able to persuade his left wing to stick to the surplus aim.

How to Solve the Dangerous Warming Threat

Des Moore — Thu, 21 Mar 2019 22:29:44 +0000

How to Solve The Dangerous Warming Threat

I am presenting a Commentary which has no attachments because their inclusion would make it difficult to circulate the Commentary with the attachments and because I can send an attachment to those who wish to see it. The whole Commentary with attachments will also be in my web site.

When controversial policy issues come under discussion in the public arena, there are often weird suggestions proposing government action. And the media publicises a supposed issue to give the impression that ““something needs to be done”. Take for example the idea that action to solve the dangerous warming threat might come if school children miss school one day and parade down the streets all over the country (and in other countries too) with placards instructing our elected politicians that urgent action is required. This is just what has happened. But has this publicity simply led to the school children going back to school and are people a bit tired of being told that much quoted models “prove” that climate change action is needed by government? Do such models actually so prove.

Climate expert and prominent journalist James Delingpole points out that climate scientist Bjorn Lomborg has a model which shows that even spending $1.5 trillion would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 of a degree by the end of the century (see Spending $1.5 trillion Estimated to Reduce Temps By only 0.048 Of a Degree by Century’s End). “Those kids are protesting on the basis of one massive lie”, Delingpole claims.

Of course, there are lots of other models, some taking a different view.

A model predicting future temperatures has been made by the Australian National University’s School of Art and Design with colleagues from the ANU Climate Change Institute. It purports to show that, unless emissions of greenhouse gases are much reduced, temperatures in 2050 will be so high that winters will cease to exist! (see No More Winters?). Even the Reserve Bank has jumped on the band wagon and published an article arguing that changes in climate may have adverse effects not simply at the time they occur but later too. According to this theory, “we need to think in terms of trend rather than cycles in the weather”. Yet no evidence is provided to justify this claim and there is no model. I have written to the bank asking that this analysis not be treated as official bank policy (see RBA Publishes Surprise Pre-election Analysis of CC). In a more comprehensive article in The Australian, Judith Sloan describes the analysis as “superficial and speculative” (see Sloan on RBA’s Surprise Pre-election Analysis of CC).

Then along comes another climate expert by the name of Brian Fisher who has just published a model showing the cost for Australia of achieving targeted emissions reductions by 2030 ranging from $70 billion for the Coalition to $1.2 trillion for Labor. He doesn’t predict what happens to temperatures but, although now retired, he previously advised both Labor and Coalition governments on climate policy. Yet a few days ago Labor rejected Fisher’s analysis this time. But as a poll just published in today’s Australian shows that support for Labor’s policy drops from 61 points to 9 in circumstances where implementing this policy would reduce projected 2030 wages by $9000 a year — or about $347 a fortnight – as Fisher’s analysis indicates. It seems possible that Labor (and the Coalition) could now decide to lower their emissions reductions targets so as to ensure that children keep their pocket money (see Modelled Economic Effects Show Costly for CC Policy).

Any such changes might also lead to more questioning of teachers by children about what the various model show about likely future temperatures. Assuming teachers are honest, they would have to admit that 102 of the (average of) temperature predictions by different experts (sic) show temperatures much higher than what happened with actual temperatures as used in IPCC reports (which uses temperature measurements that also overstate the actuals because of faulty measurements).

The difference between actual temperatures and those predicted from models is shown in a graph based on research by US climate scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy, both of whom have made presentations to US Congress committees. This graph is included in a short article headed “Climate Warming/Change Theory Reviewed”. It was written in Melbourne by The Climate Study Group (sponsored by Richard Morgan) and published in the Herald Sun (see Graph on CC).

The averages of world temperature (a mid-tropospheric measurement) of the 102 prediction models shown in the top line of the graph have risen from 0.0 degree in 1975 to about 0.8 degree in 2014 while actual temperatures ( as used by the IPCC) have only risen by about 0.2 degree over the same period. Thus the average predictors have temperatures rising about four times more than the actual temperatures. By contrast, if the actual temperatures continued to increase at about the same rate as they have been since 1975, by 2100 world temperatures would be only about 0.4 degree higher than now. In short, it is difficult to accept that such a small increase in likely future temperatures justifies government action to spend trillions of dollars on substituting costly sources of power for the usage of much cheaper coal.

It is relevant that, following President Trump’s appointment of physicist Dr Will Happer to head a Commission to review (in effect) the science of climate change, a very large number of climate experts has written expressing support for the project. In the second paragraph they say

“In our view, an independent review of these reports is long overdue. Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports. Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred. An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method.

It goes without saying that this is the kind of policy approach we need in Australia. It also shows that there are many climate experts and/or climate scientists who do not accept the dangerous warming thesis and the need for massive government spending on reducing the usage of coal. In previous Commentary I have argued that in Australia a much reduced target for emissions (and for renewable) would have virtually no effect on total world emissions which are increasing mainly because of the policies adopted by two of the biggest emitters and the announced intention to withdraw from Paris by the US. Our political leaders have missed the opportunity to (validly) save government spending and the welfare of our citizens.

RBA Publishes Surprise Pre-election Analysis Of CC

Des Moore — Thu, 14 Mar 2019 10:42:54 +0000

Is RBA Preparing for a Labor Government

I was surprised yesterday to see a report on a speech made by the RBA’s Dep Gov, Guy Debelle, on climate change and the possible implications for the economy and monetary policy (see RBA Dep Gov Says CC Has Trend Effects). I judged that, with just a few weeks until the election, it would be wrong to publish an analysis on how to treat changes in climate when that subject is probably the most controversial between the political parties. Statements by government bodies which can influence attitudes, add to the controversy and possibly favour one party, should not be made at this time. This generally accepted rule applies to the Reserve Bank notwithstanding its claim to be “independent” and the more so as Debelle claims climate change influences monetary policy.

I wrote a letter to The Australian pointing out the foregoing and adding that “Debelle enhances the problem of analysis by claiming that “we need to think in terms of trend rather than cycles in the weather” and “to reassess the frequency of climate events”. Yet he provides no evidence to justify this claim and he omits an important conclusion by the IPCC that cyclones do not exhibit a trend, that is they occur but infrequently. Analysis by Australian experts, not quoted, suggest the same as regards droughts. I call on the Governor of the RBA to state that his deputy’s speech does not necessarily reflect the bank’s official view” (see Climate Change). My letter was not published today.

In addition to having potentially improper political influences, it is concerning that this speech by Debelle was made at a forum run by the Centre For Policy Development (CPD) in Sydney. This organisation was started in 2007 and its stated objective is “long-term policy development” (as distinct from what it describes as “short term fixes and political gains”). While such an objective is obviously acceptable , and the CPD claims to be “independent and non-partisan”, it was started by John Menadue who was private secretary to Gough Whitlam for 7 years from 1960 to 1967. Although Menadue also later worked at News Ltd and for Malcolm Fraser, his public comments today remain strongly left-inclined (he publishes a public affairs blogsite). Menadue also continues as a “Fellow” of CPD, which also has several Fellows with stated Climate Change “expertise” and its publications on that subject adopt the dangerous warming thesis. The current Board Chair is Terry Moran who was appointed Secretary of PM&C by Kevin Rudd (and continued there under Julia Gillard) from March 2008 to September 2011 (Gillard continued as PM until 2013). I have not been able to establish whether it has government funding but it would not be surprising if it has. It names Julian Burnside and Fred Chaney as its Patrons.

In short, it is clear the CPD is Labor-inclined and supportive of the alleged threat from dangerous warming. Also, Labor supporters naturally recognise the importance of having senior Labor-inclined public servants. While Tony Abbott appointed a “conservative” head of PM &C (Michael Thawley), he resigned soon after Turnbull became PM and we now have his appointee, Martin Parkinson, as head of PM&C (Parkinson was the inaugural head of the Climate Change Department). It seems likely that Parkinson will remain head of PM&C if Labor wins the election. Debelle’s speech might have had this in mind.

Debelle’s Analysis

I judge there are serious questions about the analysis by Debelle in his speech (see Debelle on Climate Change). The essence of his analysis is that changes in climate not only affect the economy around the time they occur but they have trends and therefore have effects which continue over time. This means, he says, we need to reassess how to handle such changes both generally and in regard to monetary policy. Specifically, Debelle says the following on page 2:

“We need to think in terms of trend rather than cycles in the weather. Droughts have generally been regarded (at least economically) as cyclical events that recur every so often. In contrast, climate change is a trend change. The impact of a trend is ongoing, whereas a cycle is temporary.

We need to reassess the frequency of climate events. In addition, we need to reassess our assumptions about the severity and longevity of the climatic events. For example, the insurance industry has recognised that the frequency and severity of tropical cyclones (and hurricanes in the Northern Hemisphere) has changed. This has caused the insurance sector to reprice how they insure (and re-insure) against such events.

We need to think about how the economy is currently adapting and how it will adapt both to the trend change in climate and the transition required to contain climate change. The time-frame for both the impact of climate change and the adaptation of the economy to it is very pertinent here. The transition path to a less carbon-intensive world is clearly quite different depending on whether it is managed as a gradual process or is abrupt. The trend changes aren’t likely to be smooth. There is likely to be volatility around the trend, with the potential for damaging outcomes from spikes above the trend.

Both the physical impact of climate change and the transition are likely to have first-order economic effects.

Debelle then devotes a considerable proportion of the rest of his lecture to considering examples of possible climate occurrences which may have what he classifies as trend effects. He refers in particular to reports by the IPCC and Australia’s BOM and CSIRO, viz

“The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report documents that 1 degree of warming has already occurred from pre-industrial levels as a result of human activities.[2] It provides strong evidence that another half degree of warming will occur in the next 10 to 30 years if warming continues at the current rate. That is the average outcome, with some areas experiencing greater warming.

There is also likely to be significant volatility around that outcome, with an increase in the frequency of extreme temperatures. This volatility is highlighted in the first graph in the recent Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) and CSIRO report, State of the Climate. The report states that ‘Australia’s climate has warmed by just over 1 degree C since 1910, leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events’, and expects further warming over the next decade.[3] These extreme events may well have a disproportionately large physical impact.

There is also a greater possibility of compound events, where two (or more) climatic events combine to produce an outcome that is worse than the effect of one of them occurring individually. Combined with the increased volatility, this increases the likelihood of non-linear impacts on the economy.

Both the IPCC and the BoM/CSIRO reports highlight the changed environment that the economy will need to adapt to. They also provide evidence on what change is predetermined and what can be affected by actions to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change.

These analyses of climate and its effects from changes by Debelle are highly controversial and are subject to extensive queries. For example, while there is general agreement that temperatures are higher than they were in pre-industrial levels, there has been at least one considerable period (from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s) when official temperatures used by the IPCC fell at the same time as carbon emissions were increasing. This suggests there is no trend in temperatures and that there is no evidence suggesting that predetermination of temperatures can be effective from a policy viewpoint.

Further, future periods predicting warming need to be examined to see whether some may be due to unpredictable natural events (as has sometimes been the case) or to human activity involving the production of greenhouse gases from usage of fossil fuels. Debelle refers to models in his speech but he makes no mention of the failure of the existing predictive models to even get close to actual temperatures. More questions can also be raised about the assertions by both the IPCC and BOM quoted by Debelle, including in regard to the accuracy of temperature measurements. In effect, Debelle is simply accepting the view of dangerous warmists without examining the detail of what happened. and his thesis of trends does not stand up.

Importantly, Debelle also provides no explanation of the large benefits from the considerable agricultural and forest growth having occurred under existing policies. In other words, while we and others have had droughts, these have been more than offset by the growth in output from agriculture and forestry.

Debelle’s thesis of trends does not stand up to close examination.

Morrison’s Objectives Not Clear; Sea Levels; O’Dwyer Resignation

Des Moore — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 05:32:29 +0000

Where is Morrison Going?

In my Commentary for 17 January I noted that “there is no sign yet of a more comprehensive presentation of Coalition policies even though Turnbull has gone”. Recent developments have now raised the question of what Morrison is actually seeking to achieve as leader of the Coalition. For example, his three day visit to Vanuatu and Fiji, accompanied by his wife, and the announcement of financial provisions for extensive infrastructure and other aid have made it appear an important initiative for Australia (see Australia/Fiji Relations).

Yet while this might help limit Chinese activity in the region, and help Fiji itself, it scarcely rates as an initiative which the Coalition leader should undertake at a time when other policies need to be developed prior to an election in May. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who was Minister for International Development and the Pacific, and had made 35 trips to the Pacific islands, might well have implemented the enhanced Pacific policies announced by Morrison, albeit at a lower level (see Warning on Loans to Pacific Islands). But she was dropped as a minister.

Morrison himself seems to have been ill-prepared to handle the views of Fiji President, Bainimarama, on climate change and, in particular, the supposed threat of rises in sea levels.Yet all the Pacific Islands have long used the supposed threat from climate change as a basis for requiring more aid and Morrison should have recognised this. But he appears to have accepted sea levels as a real, almost immediate, threat (see Morrison on Climate Change).

Climate expert Bill Kininmonth points out that “Bob Hawke got a similar serve from the then Fiji PM at a South Pacific Forum meeting back about 1988. As a consequence the Australian government funded the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project, a network of about a dozen automated sea level and meteorological observing stations. The project was managed by the National Tidal Facility at Flinders University. The NTF was incorporated by BoM in the early 2000s. I was on a project review team in the early 200s when it was still in Flinders. There seemed to be excellent technical management of the project”.

An examination of the monthly sea level data (Max, Min and Mean) share shows that, except in one year (1997-98), there is no upwards trend in sea levels according to BOM data.

Was Morrison unaware of this? Did he consult his environment Minister? Did he consult fellow Cabinet colleagues before the visit?

His apparent failure to check on sea levels in the Pacific and Fiji in particular is made more important by an interview conducted about a year ago by the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation with expert oceanographer Nils-Axel Morner. In fact, Morner’s analysis extends beyond the Pacific and he disparages the IPCC as having “always misrepresented the facts on this topic. It exaggerates the risks of a sea level rise enormously. The IPCC relies in particular on questionable computer models rather than field research”. Morner adds that using his research “We were able to prove that the sea level in Fiji from 1550 to about 1700 was about seventy centimeters higher than it is today. Then it sank and was about fifty centimeters lower in the 18th century than it is today. Then it rose to about the current level. In the last 200 years, the level has not changed significantly. For the past 50 to 70 years, it has been stable” (see Nils-Axel Morner Says Sea Levels No Problem).

The failure of almost all political leaders, and of many who write about the supposed threat from climate change, is also illustrated in the article by Bjorn Lomborg published in Weekend Australian. He points out that a major charity, Christian Aid, has released a report, Counting the Cost: A Year of Climate Breakdown, documenting the “huge costs of climate impacts” and saying that the cost of climate change last year was $US85 billion ($118bn). Lomborg says that this claim was “repeated by many newspapers — just as it was designed to — yet it is nonsense”… “But the charity, which receives money from the British and US governments and the European Commission and raised more than £100 million in 2017-18, is scaremongering” (see Lomborg Identifies False Claims on CChange).

In short, activists who support the dangerous warming threat and the need for governments to implement policies to reduce emissions, are costing taxpayers unwarranted expenditure. But, while the meeting of political leaders at Davos this week will doubtless have considerable discussions on CC, they are unlikely to do much about that.

Resignation of Kelly O’Dwyer

Today’s announcement that Kelly O’Dwyer, the Liberal member for Higgins, will not stand again for election is another surprise the more so as it has been a blue ribbon seat. The reported resignation indicates that she had given Morrison advance notice and that “I would particularly like to thank the Prime Minister and Jenny for their personal support in what has been a very difficult decision. I have worked closely with Scott not just as PM but also as Treasurer,” Ms O’Dwyer said. “He is the right person to lead our nation and I will do all that I can, both locally and nationally, to ensure that this continues” (see Is O’Dwyer Quit a Loss to Libs?).

Her appointment was as Minister for Women and for Industrial Relations, but she has not appeared to have made any impression on the latter or its much needed reforms. Indeed, it was a bit surprising that she was given a ministry which has to deal mainly with men, had no obvious experience with the issues, and yet is thought to be a major election issue.

At the press conference announcing the resignation, Morrison is reported as agreeing that “family is so important”, and that he supported Ms O’Dwyer’s choice to leave politics. He said that being able to choose shows “great strength” and said “no one in Parliament has worked harder” on issues that women face. “When asked about Ms O’Dwyer’s replacement, she said there was plenty of talent within the Liberal Party and she hoped it would be another woman. Mr Morrison did not want to speculate on who the candidate might be” but there is much media commentary to the effect that it will “have to be a woman”.

Morrison has missed an opportunity to say that he would select the most important person available and there is in fact a need for a revised Ministry.

Dutton Exposes Turnbull

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

Dutton Exposes Turnbull Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Early Election?

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

An Early Election?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Wins at G20; Morrison Meets Trump; Germany Fails To Successfully Employ Renewables; Stone on Immigration

Des Moore — Sun, 02 Dec 2018 06:05:20 +0000

US Wins at G20 and Morrison Performs Well

Although there has been a “final statement” by leaders attending the meeting of the G20 in Argentina, the text does not seem available on the web and nor does the communique. However, some media are reporting on what was agreed. The outcome on trade was expected to reveal something on the what has been described as a dispute between the US and China (but which has implications for all trading nations). It appears that the US did succeed at G20 in obtaining agreement that the present arrangements need to be changed. The words reported as being used in the communiqué are as follows

“International trade and investment are important engines of growth, productivity, innovation, job creation and development,” the communique says. “We recognise the contribution that the multilateral trading system has made to that end. The system is currently falling short of its objectives and there is room for improvement.”(see G20 Meeting According to the Guardian)

The US also appears to have successfully downplayed the notion that globalised agreements on policy issues are the way to go.According to the Guardian report, in particular “speaking off the record, a senior US official told reporters the US “specifically preserved and explained our position for why we’re withdrawing from the job-killing Paris agreement”. The official claimed to have seen signs of “the coalition fraying” among some signatories to the Paris deal, “like Turkey, like Saudi Arabia, like Russia”. Separately, it is reported that all except the US agreed on retaining Paris, although some only agreed reluctantly (the next IPCC meeting starts in Poland tomorrow). Note also the downplaying of the role of the IMF.

Historically, international meetings such as the G20 (which started with meetings every six months but these are now only yearly) have in practice had little effect on policy decisions made by individual countries, particularly by the US. Under Trump’s Presidency the US will be even more “nationalist” in its influence (particularly through his White House adviser, John Bolton) and, even with the establishment of China as a more influential nation internationally, there is no sign of “globalisation” of policies.

However, the meetings do provide an opportunity for smaller countries such as Australia to meet with the larger countries and let their leaders know of any bilateral support or opposition. Morrison took advantage of this in his 25 minute meeting with Trump, which occurred because Trump cancelled his sideline meeting with Putin because of Russia’s attack on the Ukraine navy. While it appears that Morrison failed to use the opportunity to explain why Turnbull ceased to be PM, he seems to have indicated support for the US on trade and on its policy on Iran and terrorism generally. According to Weekend Australian, “the Trump administration views Mr Morrison as a hardliner on border protection and has looked favourably on the Prime Minister’s pushback against Iran and his review considering shifting Australia’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem”.

Trump certainly gave Morrison a big tick (see Morrison’s Meeting with Trump) and he should now use that to his advantage in Parliament and in enunciating Liberal policies. But as The Australian’s political editor points out, he can’t do it all himself. Rather, “Morrison needs to broaden that argument into a strategy based on policies that have been worked through with his colleagues and give his fractured followers something to focus on apart from each other” (see Shanahan on Morrison). As I argued in my Commentary last Thursday, Morrison needs to indicate that Turnbull’s (losing) policies have been changed and, in particular, his energy policy must ensure that electricity prices will fall substantially not through the so-called big stick approach but through a competitive market.

Energy Policy

On Energy Policy, there are recent developments which reinforce the views of skeptics on policies reducing CO2 emissions. These include

An assessment by a German analyst that “More and more people are about to realize, that supplying the world with stable energy from sun and wind only, will be impossible. Germany took on the challenge to show the world how to build a society based on green energy. They have now hit the wall. Germany has not reduced CO2 emissions over the last 10 years despite huge investments in green energy production capacity” (see Interesting Comment on Renewable Energy);
An assessment by a local physicist of the composition of C02 suggests that not only are ocean sources and plant sources independent but only some 27% of fossil fuel emissions remain in the atmosphere;
An analysis by Swedish sea level expert Nils-Axel Morner indicates that, contrary to IPCC reports, the rate of increase in sea levels has not increased.
Increased analysis showing mistakes in official temperature measurements which falsely show a faster increase in temperatures and a failure to acknowledge that the cause of increases is importantly due the natural causes.

The Morrison government could reduce the sympathetic beliefs by sections of the public, including last week’s street rallies by 10 year old children, that temperature and other weather changes are due mainly to human-caused production of fossil fuels. That would require a publication of a comprehensive report authored mainly by skeptics and should help the government justify the modification of existing targets of emissions and renewable.

Stone on Immigration

I have previously drawn attention to arguments advanced by Stone for a substantive reduction in immigration rates and for not signing up to the UN playing a role in advising on immigration policy. He has now published an article in Spectator complimenting Morrison on the government’s decision that Australia will join the US, Israel, Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Croatia, Hungary and Bulgaria in refusing to sign the UN’s ‘Global Compact on Migration’. At the same time he asks why the UN proposal to provide advice on refugees has been signed by Australia and why Morrison’s announcement to consider a reduction of only 30,000 from the immigration target of 190,000 (see Stone on Immigration). He points out that “Australia not only has a large and exceptionally costly refugee and other humanitarian resettlement program, but also makes contributions to countries (e.g., Jordan) where refugees are encamped, and in many cases to their countries of origin (most notably, Afghanistan)”.

Morrison’s Energy Policy Must Be Changed

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

Morrison Must Change Energy Policy

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

Morrison’s approach to energy should suit Labor

The Australian, October 26, 2018

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

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

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

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

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

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

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

Chris Roylance, Paddington, Qld

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

Brian Doherty, Beenleigh, Qld

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

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

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

Kevin Begaud, Dee Why, NSW

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

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

The future looks black whichever party wins the next election.

R. Watson, Sunnybank Hills, Qld

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPCC Report and Criticisms of Policies on CChange

Des Moore — Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:19:50 +0000

More on IPCC Report

My Commentary on Sunday drew attention to the address in London by highly regarded meteorology professor and US Academy member, Richard Lindzen, and his remarks that Australia’s political class has “gone completely bonkers in their response to climate change alarmism and hadn’t taken the time to actually read and understand the science”. He added ‘I can’t imagine what suicidal instincts reside in Australia’s political class.’ ‘In asking me to comment on the Australian response, you are asking the wrong person. You need to speak to someone specializing in abnormal psychology.’

I have been able to get the gist of this put in the lead letter in today’s Australian, viz

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report concluded that under existing policies coal use will likely be phased out by 2050 and there is a risk the Great Barrier Reef might disappear. Yet the main response to such possible important changes for Australia by Prime Minister Scott Morrison is that the report is not binding while Environment Minister Melissa Price says it is not policy prescriptive.

By contrast, US meteorology professor Richard Lindzen, reportedly said Australia’s political class had “gone completely bonkers in their response to climate change alarmism and hadn’t taken the time to actually read and understand the science”. He added: “I can’t imagine what suicidal instincts reside in Australia’s political class. In asking me to comment on the Australian response, you are asking the wrong person. You need to speak to someone specialising in abnormal psychology.”

The opportunity exists for the Morrison government to take advantage of the serious deficiencies in the IPCC report and modify existing climate change policies including by withdrawing from the non-binding Paris accord. Labor’s emphasis on renewables can be dismissed by Lindzen’s conclusion of an “obvious need for something more plausible to ‘sustain’ the renewables bubble”. (Other letters about the report are here in Letters on IPCC).

While the Morrison government has so far made no change in government policy since the abandonment of the NEG, the need to have a policy environment which will allow power prices to fall does require changes in energy policy. It appears that, with Turnbull’s departure, sceptics from within Coalition ranks are starting to become more vocal.

Today’s Australian points out that former Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce’s call for the federal government to “favour new coal-fired power stations over the proposed $4.5 billion Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project yesterday reignited the coal-versus-renewable debate, with a second Coalition backbencher expressing doubts about the scheme’s viability” notwithstanding an environmental economist saying “to dump it would be irresponsible”. Queensland Nationals MP Keith Pitt, an electrical engineer, said that it is likely that the money for Snowy 2.0 “would be better spent on building coal-fired power stations that got around the problem of intermittent energy of renewable”. .. “Building things based on ideology usually means taxpayers get it in the neck,” Mr Pitt said. (see Barnaby Critical of Snowy Plan). The addition to the Snowy scheme was of course proposed by former PM Turnbull.

On last night’s ABC Q&A, in response to US Professor Sachs’s assertion that inaction on climate policies by both the Australian and US governments are “unbelievably irresponsible to you and to all of the world”, prominent Victorian Senator James Paterson pointed out that Australia’s emissions make up only “about 1% of global emissions”. “If you shut Australian industry and jobs down tomorrow it would make no difference to the global climate.”(see Patterson on ABC). This realization is becoming more widespread and is reducing support for Australia being a leader in reducing emissions, which was the role adopted by Turnbull when PM.

Polls, Lindzen & Abbott

Des Moore — Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:21:35 +0000

Morrison Needs to Take Risks – Polls

Yesterday’s Commentary focussed on the lecture given in London by Professor Richard Lindzen and his ridiculing of Australian (read Morrison government) comments about the IPCC report and his denunciation of the report itself (see Lindzen Slams IPCC Report). Lindzen is not any old professor: he has written over 200 articles on climate change an meteorology and would provide enlightenment if brought to Australia, more so than Monckton because of his background. That Commentary suggested that the government should invite Lindzen.

The latest polls show that improved policy statements are badly needed and the sponsoring of Lindzen to address audiences here could provide a starting point for adjusting environment policy. Newspoll does show a Coalition increase of one percentage point but this still leaves it at 47/53 on a TPP basis. And, while this is three percentage points above the result when Turnbull was in trouble, it is still two percentage points behind what Turnbull was prior to the period when he was threatened/challenged. Morrison’s personal satisfaction rating is higher than Turnbull’s was in that period but so is Shorten’s (see Newspoll One Point Up But Only 47/53).

The Ipso-Fairfax poll shows a worse outcome for the Coalition, with it on only 45/55 TPP compared with 47/53 at the last poll. The existing TPP is about the same as it was when Turnbull was in trouble but worse than in the period before then (49/51). Morrison’s performance polls better than Shorten’s but lower than Turnbull was in the period before he (Turnbull) got into trouble and the “uncommitted” poll for Morrison is considerably higher than then (16% cf 7%). Also while lower than Morrison’s performance poll, Shorten’s has improved compared with the period before Turnbull got into trouble (see Labor Leads 55/45 in Fairfax Poll).

The need for improved policy statements is reflected in today’s piece by Andrew Bolt, who rightly argues that Morrison has been “trying to have it both ways, and can’t get cut-through on either”. Of course, he cannot make substantive policy changes before next Saturday’s Wentworth by-election and the reports that this may be very close outcome. Bolt claims that Morrison is “working hard on policies he’ll roll out closer to the election”, but rightly adds that “he’ll need to reveal them much sooner before voters conclude he’s all smiles and no substance” (see Bolt on Morrison). During the current week Morrison also needs to stop making statements which contradict other earlier statements or leave voters wondering which way the government is going.

Meantime, Tony Abbott is reported as participating today in the by-election and making some comments which are pertinent and which Morrison should note:

“Tony Abbott has urged Malcolm Turnbull to give a personal endorsement for the Liberal Party’s candidate in the Wentworth by-election. Mr Abbott declined to respond to Mr Turnbull calling him a “miserable ghost” but urged the former prime minister to send a “solid, clear, personal endorsement” of the Liberal Party’s candidate Dave Sharma. “The one thing that I would love to see from Malcolm this week is a tweet from New York endorsing Dave Sharma,” Mr Abbott told 2GB radio.

“I know he doesn’t want to get too involved with Australian politics, I understand that, I know he is probably enjoying a bit of R & R with Lucy in New York, but I reckon he owes it to the party and the people of Wentworth to give Dave Sharma a solid, clear personal endorsement this week in particular.”

He said this Saturday’s by-election would be a “tough” one to win for the Liberal Party and labelled independent candidate Kerryn Phelps as “effectively the Labor candidate”. “The official Labor candidate is some bloke but the real Labor candidate is Kerryn Phelps and that’s why if you vote for Kerryn Phelps you are really voting for Bill Shorten and it is important that people understand that,” he said.

Mr Abbott said the government was in better shape with Scott Morrison as leader than under Mr Turnbull”.

The emergence of Abbott is of some significance following his excellent address a week or so ago to the Oxford Union. I have made available here a copy as I judge it to be worth reading by those sympathetic to the genuine liberal cause. Coalition MPs should read it.

“The great thing about Prime Minister Scott Morrison is when he addresses a subject you understand exactly what he means, he speaks in short clear sentences, and he is a tribal Liberal. And that is what we want, we want someone who believes in our cause and regards themselves as a creature of our party,” he said.