Institute for Private Enterprise » Judith Sloan

Uncertainty in Labor’s Policies; Islamic Threat

Des Moore — Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:48:13 +0000

What Are Labor’s Policies?

Today’s Australian has published considerable material on the failure of Labor to clearly enunciate its policies. I have previously drawn particular attention to Labor’s failure to publish aggregates alternative to those in the Coalition’s budget and to costings for the economy of its global warming policy. This defect remains.

But the recent emergence of many questions about Labor’s policies on specific policy issues has opened the way for much wider challenges to be made. The opening up of this area should also allow Morrison to reduce his announcements of funding small projects, which appear too much as vote buying, and focus more on attacking Shorten. It has also led The Australian to inter alia run the main letters column today with the heading Uncertainty Surrounds Labor’s Announced Policies. I was fortunate in having my epistle included as “lead letter” – as set out below.

Uncertainty Surrounds Labor’s Announced Policies

Letter Published in The Australian, April 25, 2019 (Bits in square brackets omitted by Ed).

Those closely following the election had been expecting that after Easter Labor would publish proposed budget aggregates and their costings – just as the Coalition did in its budget. No such luck. What we are getting are reports that material distributed by some Labor candidates omit to mention Shorten is their leader.

This may reflect the failure of Labor to decide [internally] on detailing the reasons for some of its decisions. Take the decision to require half of new vehicles to be electric by 2030.

It now appears that the recording of high electric sales in Norway [(much tinier than Australia)] may be due [importantly] to a near 100 per cent sales tax there on non-electric cars. Would Labor provide that “incentive” here?

Then there is the proposed Adani coal mine, for which the Coalition has given approval to all legal federal requirements.

But despite having said that he is being “governed by the law”, Shorten is not prepared to accept such approvals. Instead, he says this proposed investment by an Indian company is a matter for the Queensland government. Does this mean that Labor would cease to have the federal government determine foreign investment policy?

The foregoing are not the only Labor policy issues which are uncertain. Decision time has surely arrived.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

I also include in this Commentary some very brief references to recent commentaries on some other specific issues, viz

After humming and hawing Shorten now says he would not review environmental decisions made by the Coalition. Yet at the same time Labor would not sign the “pledge” by the largest union, the CFMEU, tosupport the coalmining industry and, in implied support for the proposed Adani mine, for “coalmining developments that meet regulatory requirements”. Contrary to Shorten, some Labor candidates say they would leave the question of reviews open (see Shorten Says No Adani Review);
Shorten leaves open the possibility of tax reductions for those on high incomes (see this article);
Wong (Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) refuses to answer questions on the Australia-US alliance, Taiwan and refugees (see this article);
GetUp has removed its extraordinary ad denying (in effect) that Abbott is a surf life saver and, while agreeing with the removal, Abbott’s main challenger (Stegall) amazingly denies she has any connection with GetUp (see this article);
How can Shorten’s promise to alleviate the cost of living be met with the latest zero increase in the cost (see this article)?

The other two attachments reflect, firstly, the differences of view about the role of Muslims in the Sri Lankan bombings and the over 300 killings . As Andrew Bolt points out, it has exposed a general refusal of the political left to openly “admit” that one Islamic aim is to eliminate Christians, which is now certain in the case of the Sri Lankan killings. Of particular interest is the possibility that the SK killings are a revenge for the killings of Muslims in Christchurch New Zealand. Bolt’s analysis is revealing in identifying prominent politicians, including Obama and Hilary Clinton, who have refused to even acknowledge that the death of Christians has been the aim (see Bolt on Denials of Muslims in Sri Lankan).

The second attachment outlines the extent of persecution of Christians and the widespread failure of believers in Christianity to do much about it. The author is Bill Muelenberg who is an expert in Jihadism and who worked in the Institute of Public Affairs when I was also there. He points out that “there have been 34,891 deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. That occurred 6,431 days ago. So we are now averaging five and a half such attacks each day since then. It is getting worse”(see attached Sri Lanka, Jihadist Massacres, and Western Denial).

In an earlier Commentary I have also written about Mark Durie who has written a new book, THE QUR’AN AND ITS BIBLICAL REFLEXES, which convincingly argues that the Koran requires Muslims to kill non-Muslims.

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.

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.

CChange Silly Season; Shorten’s Danger Promises; Immigration Policies Changing

Des Moore — Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:09:37 +0000

Silly Season Arrives Early on “Dangers” From Fossil Fuels

Yesterday’s meeting of COAG confirm that discussions of energy policy between federal and state minister have reached the point when people do or say things that are not sensible or serious ie the silly season has arrived (it appears that the only area of agreement was in regard to retail reliability!). The Liberal Energy Minister in NSW, Don Harwin, who somehow acquired a BEc(Hons), advised COAG to aim for zero carbon emissions by 2050 even though his website says “coal will remain a vital source of energy”. To put it mildly, these two propositions conflict and Harwin was not even allowed to put a motion to the meeting.

True, Harwin did rightly say “climate change is a scientific fact”. But nothing was said on what causes climate changes to happen. Since the year 2000, temporary increases aside, global temperatures have been relatively stable despite the strong increase in carbon emissions staying in the atmosphere. Temperatures also remained stable in the post WW2 period to the late 1970s in the face of increasing emissions. The implies there is no substantive scientific correlation between increases in carbon emissions and temperatures.

In reality, the danger threat (sic) from usage of fossil fuels has lost credibility and policies aimed at reducing emissions should be re-examined . Australian governments should not continue policies to reduce emissions unless climate scientists can explain the periods of relative price stability in the face of increasing emissions.

As Judith Sloan points out, “one of the troubles with Harwin (and his Victorian counterpart, Lily D’Ambrosio) is their combined understanding of the energy market is measured in nanowatts; in other words, neither has a clue”. And “ Why would Harwin be worried about 2050 when NSW households have been hit with a rise of nearly $400 in their annual electricity bills over the past two years? Low-income households in NSW are now paying more than 10 per cent of their disposable incomes just to keep the lights on. It was surely ironic that in the same week as the conference, the wholesale price of electricity in the National Energy Market was soaring well above $100 a megawatt hour. Yet Harwin is more concerned about what’s going to happen in 31 years’ time” (see Sloan on Harwin)

As I have previously suggested, if Morrison moderated Australia’s emissions reduction targets in order to start reducing prices naturally, that would be a potential election winner in circumstances where Shorten’s target of a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030 would increase them.

Labor Policies Have Dangers

In an article today, Andrew Bolt argues that at Labor’s National Conference Shorten made promises which would be better NOT kept if he gains office. One is climate change which I deal with above. Bolt adds that “few realise those cuts don’t apply just to coal-fired power stations, but also to cars, trucks, planes, farms, factories, mines and even cattle and pigs, huge sources of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. That is crazy. Doing this, as the Chief Scientist admits, will make virtually no difference to the temperature” (see Bolt on Promises NOT to Keep).

Bolt’s other three “danger promises” by Shorten are a wind back in negative gearing on investment properties as house prices fall; a change in the constitution to create another parliament, an advisory one just for Aborigines, to advise the real parliament meant to represent us all; and increases in refugee immigrants and in grants to the UN to help resettle refugees in the region.

Shorten also said Labor would continue to support the turning the turning back of the boats and offshore detention. But the policy supported in the House’s last day of sitting to fast-track the transfer of asylum seekers to the mainland if assessed by two doctors (and with no ministerial intervention except on security grounds) has the potential to further increase migrants as “asylum seekers”. The national conference showed there is considerable pressure from Labor’s left wing to liberalise the admission of so-called refugees.

Immigration Policies Changing Overseas

Relevant here is the increased resistance to admitting refugees into European countries. Immigration policy is a major issue in the popular protests in France, where there is said to be between 200,000 and 400,000 illegal immigrants in a population of 67 million, which already includes an estimated 5.7 million people born in another country (see French Immigration Policy). In Belgium the Prime Minister has been forced to resign over a dispute on immigration policy (see Belgian PM Resigns on Immigration) and the protest movement across Europe includes an anti-migration component. In the US the Trump government, in conjunction with Mexico, has pledged $5.7 billion “toward development in Central America and Mexico, as part of a plan to strengthen economic growth in the region and curb illegal immigration” (see U.S. Aid to Mexico). In short, it seems that an increased resistance overseas to allowing refugees has developed, which has implications for Australia’s policy too.

CChange Conference; Judith Curry on Predictions of CChange

Des Moore — Sun, 16 Dec 2018 04:15:29 +0000

Climate Change Conference & Judith Curry’s Analysis of Sea Levels

It was great to discover at last Wednesday’s Christmas drinks at Treasury (in Canberra) a number of “oldies” who said they were enjoying my Commentary and in particular the scepticism about the dangerous warming nonsense. While I resigned from Treasury in 1987 I later hoped that, with the danger thesis becoming more widely reflected in government policy both here and overseas, Treasury would publish analyses as John Stone and others had done on various controversial economic subjects during my time there. In fact, I edited a couple including one on the New International Economic Order(NIEO), which had an aim similar to one adopted by believers in the dangerous warming theme viz “save” developing countries by providing squillions of aid which would allow them to substitute costly fuel sources for cheaper fossil fuels.

But such a published Treasury analysis post 1987 was apparently regarded as too “difficult” politically, particularly in circumstances where, after his defeat of Tony Abbott, Turnbull as PM regarded climate change action as one of his main policy objectives. Now that Turnbull has been defeated his successor Scott Morrison has not made it clear what his policy is, although he appears to retain Turnbull’s Paris agreement of reducing emissions by 26-28% by 2030 even though this agreement is non-binding. By stark contrast Opposition Leader Shorten endorses a target of 50% emissions reduction by the same date.

Our main hope for change has been that some prominent world leaders and/or scientists would pour cold water on the danger theme and that this would lead to a reduction in emissions targets. A start has been made with the presidents of Czechoslovakia (Vaclav Havel) and the USA (Trump) rejecting the thesis and an increasing number of scientists exposing the flaws. Trump has indicated the US will formally withdraw from the Paris Agreement made in 2015.

Reports of the climate change conference being held in Poland (due to have finished but still going last night as the 24^th COP) suggest the US attitude has reduced support for action. This reduced support is reflected in

A reduction in world leaders attending. In fact, media reports on the conference do not quote any world leader. With Turnbull gone, the Australian rep is newly appointed Environment Minister Melissa Price and few other countries seem to have sent their leaders. Most noticeable is the absence of French President Macron who boasted of France as a leader of climate change action by imposing a fuel tax and has now had to withdraw it because of yellow-vest protests across France. While these protests are not only being made in support of sceptics of the warming thesis, they send a message to leaders that it would be unwise to adopt the Macron approach of initiating specific policies to reduce usage of fossil fuels. It appears that big producers of fossil fuels, mainly Russia and Saudi Arabia, have supported the US during the conference;
A pro-fossil fuel event was held at the conference by the Trump administration and, according to ABC news, the only non-American panellist at the event was Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment, Patrick Suckling. “Fossil fuels are projected to be a source of energy for a significant time to come,” Mr Suckling said (see ABC on CChange Conference);
The refusal of some countries to include in the communiqué a “welcome” to the last special (sic) IPCC report and instead to make that simply a “note” of the report. However, one report says the communiqué will not include any reference to that report (see BBC on CChange Conference 15/12);
UN chief Antonio Guterres warning that a failure to reach a satisfactory conclusion would be “suicidal,” a point reportedly echoed by small island states fearing for their existence as rising sea levels render their homes uninhabitable.

While Guterres will doubtless attempt to wind up the conference with a communiqué saying that a “consensus” was reached on the need to reduce emissions, any such consensus is unlikely to have the post-conference political support its predecessors felt they had. Also, it will be less difficult politically to justify changes in policies which involve less aggressive action to reduce emissions and provide a longer time frame for continued use of fossil fuels, as Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment implies .

Such possible changes in Australian policy are supported by The Australian’s decision to publish an article on sea levels by US climate scientist Judith Sloan. She assesses estimates of “the maximum possible global sea level rise by the end of the 21st century range from 1.6m to 3m, and even higher, ” as “extreme values of sea level rise … regarded as extremely unlikely or even impossible. Nevertheless, they are driving policies and local adaptation plans”. She also argues that

“climate model predictions consider only human-caused warming and neglect changes in natural climate processes, such as variations in the sun’s output, volcanic eruptions and long-term changes to ocean circulations. These natural processes are expected to have a cooling effect in the 21st century” (see Judith Curry: Alarmist Sea Level Predictions Not Likely to Occur).

Curry’s analyses are of particular importance because she has changed sides. As pointed out in my letter published by The Australian, “after careful research, she became a sceptic and her analysis has been recognised as suitable for publication after peer review” (see CChange Letters 13/12). Other letters published also support Curry and her implicit support for an energy policy which is not based on predictions “regarded as extremely unlikely or even impossible”.

The conclusion in my letter is that “If the Morrison government were to recognise this it could justify lowering Australia’s target for reducing emissions and adopt a policy based on reducing electricity prices”. That would be a potential winner for next year’s election.

Morrison Active But No Major Policy Statements

Des Moore — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 12:46:04 +0000

Morrison Active But Short on Major Policy Statements

My last Commentary (4 November) was headed “How Much Longer Can Morrison Last” and suggested that he must quickly address major policy issues and stop announcing handouts mainly designed to demonstrate that he is an “active” PM. But his decision to establish a electoral promotion bus to travel around parts of Queensland has so far not produced major policy statements. Of some interest is that senior Queensland Liberal Steve Ciobo (who voted for Dutton in the leadership spill) “refused to say yesterday whether the leadership switch to Mr Morrison would help improve the government’s stocks in the state”: ‘I don’t think it serves anyone’s purpose and I also don’t think, frankly, that Queenslanders or indeed Australians more generally, care about what’s happened,’ Mr Ciobo told Sky News (see Morrison Qld Bus Tour).

There have been, and remain, opportunities to make major statements or explanations of policies.

The first relates to the US’s announcement not only of a re-imposition of sanctions against Iran but an increase compared with what they were before Obama (with help from the Europeans) announced a virtual abandonment of them. An editorial in today’s Australian points out that “Just as Scott Morrison is right to have announced an updated review of Australia’s support for the deal, so should Europe do the same”. It also quotes the assessment by Colin Rubenstein (of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council) that “Archives of smuggled Iranian intelligence documents revealed by Israel have shown that, contrary to assertions Tehran has been complying with the deal’s terms, it has pursued “a (secret) strategy of noncompliance and incomplete disclosure of its nuclear capabilities and ambitions in violation of the (deal’s) letter and spirit” (see Sanctions on Iran).

With Iran so reliant on its oil exports, and already experiencing a high unemployment rate, the US sanctions will make it increasingly difficult to continue to finance terrorist groups in the Middle East and, in particular, those groups which are a major threat to Israel and which are taking quasi-military action against residents of that country. It will also make it difficult for European countries to sustain their agreement with Obama to accept Iran’s undertaking not to develop its nuclear capacity. A statement endorsing the US announcement could be presented as, inter alia, strengthening Australia’s support of the US and its alliance with that country.

The second opportunity for Australia to make a major statement has been on immigration. In my previous Commentary I drew attention to the excellent article by Judith Sloan outlining the strong domestic support for action to reduce immigration (see Reduced Immigration a Possible Morrison Winner).

A third opportunity would be less about making a major statement than providing an indication that Australia strongly supports the announcement by Chinese President XI that it will open its economy. Inter alia, XI has just stated that “China has pursued development with the door open and succeeded in transforming a semi-closed economy into a fully open economy. Openness has become a trade mark of China. China’s door will never be closed. It will only open still wider” (see China to Open Economy). China is of course far from providing the openness which XI claims as its objective: but it is a promising development.

So too is the apparent change in Chinese attitude to Australia through its invitation to our Foreign Minister to pay an official visit to China. As Greg Sheridan points out, Australia has been prepared for some time to stomach the failure to receive such an invitation while also being “as close to the Trump administration on broad security issues, especially Indo-Pacific security issues, as any nation in the world”. While one has to see how this works out in practice, it should be officially acknowledged as being as welcome as the open economy is (see Improved Chinese Relations Reflect Trump).

Australia should also recognize that these developments in Chinese policy almost certainly at least partly reflect the response to Trump’s trade policy. The apparent inability of the World Trade Organization to ensure that China conducts a “fair trade” policy has arguably forced the US in particular to take measures which force China to adopt such a policy in its trade with the US and, in doing so, this inevitably extends to trade with other countries. This has been widely criticized as threatening a move to a “protectionist war” between countries. But it appears that the US has set itself up as a de facto WTO and that genuine protectionist policies are limited. It runs a deficit on international trade (ie imports exceed exports) of over $US50 bn a year and this has been increasing.

Morrison’s Leadership Still Astray

Des Moore — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 04:19:41 +0000

How Much Longer Can Morrison Last

In my Commentary on 29 October I suggested that last Monday’s Newspoll of a 46/54 TPP, and the negative personal “Satisfaction” rate for Morrison himself, required him to quickly change his current strategy or face the question as to whether he should continue to be leader. I noted that, while Abbott was not currently presenting himself as an alternative PM, he is participating actively in the general political debate and previous PM candidate Dutton is also active as Home Affairs Minister. But on last Monday’s Newspoll Dutton and other Coalition MPs would likely lose their seats and he and other Coalition members ought to be pressing Morrison to address major policy issues and stop announcing fewer handouts designed to demonstrate that he is an “active” PM.

Morrison has at least made a start in rejecting Turnbull’s announcement (sic) that Australia would, in effect, follow Indonesian President’s view against moving Australia’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem (see Morrison Rejects Turnbull on Moving Embassy to Jerusalem). As an Ex-PM Turnbull had no right to make such a statement as he was (wrongly) employed by Morrison only to represent Australia at a conference on oceans. The fact that he made this statement suggests that, contrary to his own promise to keep out of politics once he ceased to be PM, he will involve himself in the political debate. He has already accepted an ABC invitation to be the sole guest at next Thursday’s Jones’s Q&A program, which is well known to support left wing views.

Morrison should now follow up by confirming that Australia will move its embassy because it is in our interests to support Israel as the lone democracy in the Middle East (interestingly, it looks as though the new President of Brazil, Bolsonaro, will also do so). There are other policy matters which could be changed and which would help distance himself from Turnbull (see attached for a brief summary of Turnbull’s history on Henderson on Turnbull). That is not only to move the Liberal Party closer to its supposed objectives: it would also distinguish it much more clearly from a Labor party which might also seek to use Turnbull as an informal adviser. His first attempt to be a politician was of course to join the ALP.

Two issues of importance which Morrison should be able to take quick decisions.

First, is the policy on immigration. In an excellent analysis published in Weekend Australian, Judith Sloan refers to a number of reasons why the level of immigration should be reduced (see Reduced Immigration a Possible Morrison Winner), viz

“there has however been something of a structural break in attitudes to immigration over the past two or three years. According to a recent Newspoll, three-quarters of respondents favoured reducing the permanent migrant intake”;
”in this year’s Lowy Poll“41 per cent agree that “if Australia is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation”.
in a poll conducted by Essential Research in April, “64 per cent expressed the view that the level of immigration has been too high over the past 10 years. Thirty-seven per cent thought the level of immigration was “much too high”.
Katharine Betts of Swinburne University and The Australian Population Research Institute conducted a survey last year which found that three-quarters of respondents thought that Australia did not need any more people. Just over half wanted a reduction in immigration.

Please note that this is very much a summary of Sloan’s article. The full text attached is required reading.

Related to immigration policy is Australia’s policy on asylum seekers. The revelation by Home Affairs minister Dutton that “more than 70 asylum seekers in detention centres on Nauru have knocked back an offer to resettle in the United States when they heard they would have to work and would not receive welfare… the refusal by a sizeable number of people on Nauru to resettle in the US indicated they were not genuine refugees… and that resettling refugees from Nauru in New Zealand would risk restarting the smuggling trade to Australia — where they would end up in Nauru, regardless of whether they have children” (see Asylum Seekers Reject US Offer). Clearly, given the policy announced by Morrison that all children on Nauru will be moved from there by Christmas, there has to be a very careful additional review of the parents.

Another major policy which should be changed is to recognise that the environment “atmosphere” has changed markedly and, at the very least, to support the moderation of our climate change policy. In an article in Weekend Australian by Environment Editor, Graham Lloyd, he points to the “conflicting signals including the demise of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the rise of authoritarian president-elect Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. Together with Donald Trump’s withdrawal of climate change funding and threats to leave the Paris Agreement altogether, the global sentiment going into Poland is vastly different from that coming out of Paris in December”. Analysis by the pro-action Climate Home News is that ‘the alliance of rich, emerging and poor economies that sealed the Paris climate deal is falling apart’. In many countries, it says, ‘climate scepticism and economic nationalism are usurping the international green enthusiasm of 2015’ (see Paris Agreement Falling Apart).

Lloyd’s article shows there are many points which support a moderation in our policy. In particular he points out that the federal opposition climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler wrongly states that: “We’ve also seen the biannual survey of company directors for the first time place climate change, or action on climate change, at the top of the list of challenges that company directors think the federal government should be acting on.” In fact, as Lloyd points out that “A full reading of the Australian Institute of Company Directors report shows otherwise. The leading economic challenges cited are rising global economic protectionism, global economic uncertainty, energy policy, taxation system, high energy prices, red tape, low productivity growth, the China economic outlook and then climate change. Climate change is considered a major long-term issue for government to solve. But what business wants the government to concentrate on now is energy policy, tax reform and infrastructure” (underlining added).

More ‘Movement at the Station’ Needed

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

More “Movement at The Station” Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Final” Version of NEG But Coal Still Favoured by Many

Des Moore — Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:53:02 +0000

The Final Version of NEG

The Australian reports that the “final” version of NEG has now been sent to the states from where they will soon be leaked (see NEG “Finalised”). This version is to be considered at COAG next month and it appears that it does not include the mechanism for setting the emission reduction target, which are (amazingly) to be set each year under federal legislation. The responsibility for meeting the so-called “reliability obligation” is unclear as to what variation in supply, and from what fuel source, would be “unreliable”. No mention is made in this report of what is expected to happen to electricity prices.

Nor is there any indication of what happens if at least some of the states do not accept this version. That is in effect the case in the US, where California is attempting to be a strong reducer of carbon emissions while Trump has withdrawn from the Paris target mechanism and at the national level there is no target. Here some states have indicated that they will aim to reduce emissions by more than the 26-30% reduction agreed to by Turnbull in Paris in 2015. That appears to be the most likely outcome from the August meeting.

Letters Favour Coal

The Australian has also published some letters under the heading Evidence is piling up in favour of coal-fired power (see Letters on Coal). My letter, which is included in the group, is set out below. Unfortunately, the editor omitted the last three sentences which suggest that Frydenberg’s prediction of a fall in prices to 2030 is unbelievable and that the modeling included in the ESB report, which also predicts a major initial fall, needs to be thoroughly checked by an independent modeller

Evidence is piling up in favour of coal-fired power

Letter Published in the Australian on 24 July (Bits in square brackets omitted by Ed)

Terry McCrann shows that significantly expanding the source of power from wind turbines (now only 5 per cent) instead of from coal power would also require additional back up investments to ensure the regularity of supply now provided by coal. But this [major] additional investment would only be required for short periods, an uneconomic outcome that would need government financial support.

Yet the Turnbull government’s National Energy Guarantee climate policy does not recognise either this or the Australian Energy Market Operator’s view that ageing coal-fired plants can deliver the cheapest electricity for the next twenty years. Realistically, it is impossible to keep existing coal generators providing cheap power (now over 60 per cent) and simultaneously cutting carbon emissions from that power’s source. One has to go, with significant implications for power prices.

A major reduction in coal generators would normally cause continually rising prices because the substitution of renewable adds considerably to the cost of production. [Yet Frydenberg has predicted a 23 per cent fall on average over the decade to 2030 and claimed that as better than under Labor’s plan. But this reflects modelling for NEG’s Energy Security Board by Frontier Economics. The technology used is open to serious questioning and requires thorough checking.]

Des Moore, South Yarra

The Australian has also published an article on NEG by Judith Sloan (see Sloan on Renewable) which ridicules the references to prices, viz “Among the ridiculous claims the renewable energy sector continues to make is the idea that more renewable energy will lead to lower electricity prices. Of course our experience has been the reverse, but that doesn’t stop them throwing in the factoid that renewable energy is now the cheapest form of power — just don’t stop the subsidies, though”. But somewhat surprisingly her apparent frustration with the whole exercise leads her to conclude on NEG that “I can probably live with it. It’s also the only game in town. If prices could at least stabilise or fall slightly, that would be a better outcome than ongoing increases. We have been extremely foolish to get where we are, but let’s not forget that omelets are impossible to unscramble”. That shouldn’t be the conclusion of those who are not believers in dangerous global warming and government action to stop it.

Turnbull & Policy Issues Here & O’Seas

Des Moore — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:32:32 +0000

Turnbull Survives Newspoll 30

Today’s Australian runs a Letters section titled “Newspoll is not all bad news for the Prime Minister”. Indeed! Even though it includes eight leadership quality measures showing a quite sharp deterioration in Turnbull’s assessment (see yesterday’s Commentary on web), no Liberal Party MP comes forward to challenge Turnbull (partly because he or she realises the enormous task required to undo his decisions). This suggests we face with another year or so of Turnbullism.

Energy Policy

One of Turnbull’s decisions is to establish a policy named as National Energy Guarantee (NEG). Even though this has been the subject of discussion for many months, details of how it would work have not been published by the “experts” (ESB) who have been tasked with working them out (in fact, Turnbull has made the astonishing statement that they will not simply work them out but they rather than Cabinet will actually determine what they will be). But the stated objectives are that they will result in lower prices and ensure reliability (no blackouts) and that this will all be done while meeting the government’s renewable energy and 2030 emissions targets under the Paris Agreement to which Turnbull signed Australia. Moreover, it will be done while ensuring that the use of coal-fired generators (which have to be reduced if the targets are to be met) continue to supply 60 per cent of power.

Sound like a bit of a mix up?

In fact, Judith Sloan (see Sloan on NEG) draws attention to the questioning and contradictions arising from statements being made by Treasurer Morrison, Minister Freudenberg, existing Large Retailers, and the chief regulator of supply (AEMO) in the waiting room ie while waiting for the experts to decide (when I suspect there will be more questioning). These arise from attempts to (as she says) “hitch the wagon to the Prime Minister”. He of course is the PM who has emphasised the importance of science and innovation, the results of which are being felt by Australian citizens.

US Policy in Syria

In a previous Commentary I argued that it was important for the US to maintain, even increase, its currently small role in Syria as Assad (with Russian help) resumes some governance in Syria. Although Trump then indicated the US would pull out of Syria, following the use of chemical weapons by Assad & the Russians, and Israel’s decision to bomb an airbase in Syria, he appears to have changed his mind (see OZ on Syrian Chemicalsand Israel Attacks Syrian Air Base). According to the attached editorial in The Australian, Trump responded to these developments by stating that “if President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line in The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!”. The editorial adds “He will be similarly remiss, however, if he persists in pulling out US troops from Syria and leaving it to Russia and Iran as they underpin Assad and entrench themselves in the Middle East at Washington’s expense. It would be hard to imagine a set of circumstances more demanding of strong and resolute leadership from the US and the White House”.

Bolton’s Views on US Foreign Policy

As previously mentioned, the new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, may have persuaded Trump to change his mind on the Syrian involvement. It turns out that his first official involvement at the White House was attending an emergency session of the White House National Security Council on Syria. The Syrian issue is also the first one mentioned in a Breitbart note titled “Seven Crises John Bolton Faces on Day One as National Security Adviser”. This note provides a useful summary of Bolton’s views on US national security policy and, hence, on the US’s involvement in world affairs and its potential implications for Australia. The items covered in the note include (after Syria), Tensions with Russia, North Korea, Iran Nuclear Deal, Chinese Economic and Military Policy, Israel and Terrorism.

My reading of them is that they are generally on the right track and the note is well worth reading in full. As far as I am aware, there has been no attempt yet by Australia to arrange a meeting with Bolton.

Hungary and Immigration Policy

Hungarian PM Victor Orban has won his party’s third term with an increased vote. He has been described as “far right” mainly because of his alleged restrictive policies on immigrants and refugees. The attached report (Orban Increases Hungary Votes) suggests that “Orban will likely seize on the results as vindication of his clashes with EU institutions over his hardline anti-immigration policies and rejection of the EU’s refugee resettlement program, as well as his moves to clamp down on civil society groups”. With a third victory he may soon cease to be described as “far right” and his success may encourage more attention to the cultural aspects of immigration.