Institute for Private Enterprise » Julie Bishop

More Ministers Quit; Treasury Officer’s Life

Des Moore — Sun, 03 Mar 2019 22:31:36 +0000

Can Morrison Cope with Two More Cabinet Departures

Last Friday’s Commentary suggested that the latest Coalition’s Newspoll of 47/53 for the third successive time indicated that the Morrison government was still in serious trouble. I suggested that the additional policy decisions announced by Morrison on climate policy would be unlikely to help close the gap.

These measures included acceptance of the Paris agreement and an expanded use of renewable through the establishment of the very uneconomic Snowy2.0 and the usage of “big batteries”. Energy Minister Taylor also claimed the new measures would cut energy bills while lowering emissions but this failed to take account of the additional costs from using the Snowy or from back-ups needed when other renewable are not available. I noted that it seemed unlikely that the Energy Minister would be able to reduce electricity prices except through the adoption of a regulatory system which legally limited the maximum price able to be charged by retailers.

While the Cabinet elevation of Senator Reynolds to Defence Minister (from Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) means the Morrison cabinet now has the greatest representation of women in the senior ministry of any government, Pyne will stay as head of that ministry until after the election, when he will not stand for return to Parliament. Mr Morrison said of Senator Reynolds: “When you can call up a brigadier, in the form of Linda Reynolds, to take on the role of defence minister, it shows we have a lot of talent on our bench to draw from. Linda will be the second female to serve in a cabinet-ranked defence portfolio. She will bring the number of female members in the cabinet to seven. “This is the highest number of any cabinet since federation.” More importantly, in the interviews she has conducted since her appointment, Reynolds has shown she should have become a cabinet minister some time ago.

The recent loss of several Coalition Ministers, including (until the election) of Pyne as a senior Minister and the immediate resignation of Defence Industry Minister Ciobo, has led some to question whether this might not allow Morrison greater freedom to run the “ship” and to have the Coalition become a genuine “conservative” party with a reduced influence from so-called moderates. Of particular importance in this regard is the end of Pyne, who is reported as once saying he could have stood for Labor, and ran as a Liberal only because he lived in a Liberal seat (see Norington’s Analysis of Pyne or Realities of Politics). With both Turnbull and Pyne departing, the potential for a move of the Coalition to conservatism in greatly enhanced.

In today’s Herald Sun, commentators Andrew Bolt and Rita Panahi both argue that this situation may help the electoral position of the Coalition. Bolt argues that

“Malcolm Turnbull gone, Julie Bishop and Kelly O’Dwyer going, and now Christopher Pyne, too. Know what some Liberals call that? A good start. The election will do the rest. Check Sportsbet’s seat-by-seat odds. They tip that from the ruins of this Morrison Government after the May election will crawl a Liberal party where conservatives will again have the numbers and most of the talent. The Liberal Left has destroyed not just the party but itself, and that’s why some of its leaders are now deserting — and slamming the door in fury” (see attached Coalition May Become Conservative).

Of course, there is a lot of water to pass under the bridge before the election and Bolt acknowledges that Morrison himself is “ideologically flighty”. But Morrison has a much improved outlook if he can present himself as a leader who believes in the Menzian “small” government approach and who will spend more time attacking the policies being canvassed by Shorten.

Responses to Assessment of Treasury Life

During the time I was in Treasury (for 27 years until 1987) I naturally had several acquaintances with David Morgan who joined in 1980 at age 33 and left in 1990 to join Westpac. He did not work for me during that time but I became familiar with his economic and political views, although unlike some others I was not invited to his marriage to a Labor minister. His decision to have a book written about his life, titled David Morgan: An Extraordinary Life by an Oliver Brown and published at age 72, reflected his somewhat aggressive approach to letting the world know of his views. On 2-3 March the AFR published an article by Brown who says that at Westpac “he was given a brutal assessment of his management skills”.

The Australian’s Business journalist Richard Gluyas has also written about Morgan’s experiences and his article of 2-3 March is attached (see Gluyas on Morgan). That article however does not appear to provide a completely accurate picture of the then Secretary to the Treasury, John Stone. This has resulted in letters published by each of Stone and myself below.

Ros Kelly warning ‘did not happen’

Letters Published in The Australian, John Stone, Des Moore, 12:00AM March 4, 2019

8 Comments

I refer to Richard Gluyas’s Business Review article (“How a banker’s life lessons were forged”, 2-3/3) regarding David Morgan’s biography. In the article Morgan is quoted from the book as saying: “Over drinks one Friday night in Canberra, before (Morgan) married (Ros) Kelly in 1983, the arch-conservative then-Treasury secretary John Stone scowled at Morgan: ‘If you marry that woman, you will never be secretary to the Treasury’.” That is untrue.

I would never have said such a thing about Ros Kelly, nor would I have thought of Morgan (then a relatively junior officer) as a possible future secretary to the Treasury. My subsequent invitation (which I accepted) to attend their wedding renders the allegation even more bizarre.

I have known Morgan for 47 years. His intellectual abilities have never been in doubt. It was for an entirely different reason, when he asked some time ago that the author of his then planned biography might speak to me, that I declined.

John Stone, Lane Cove, NSW

In his commentary on David Morgan’s book on his own life, Richard Gluyas writes that “after an early career at the International Monetary Fund”, Morgan switched over to Treasury where he formed a tight bond with fellow thinkers who allegedly “marginalised” Treasury secretary John Stone, who “then exited Treasury”.

I have not read this book but am puzzled by this assertion.

As a deputy secretary Treasury at the time Stone resigned in 1984, I was in close contact with him at that time and I do not recall him attributing his resignation to any pressure from within Treasury. To the contrary.

Regarding the exchange rate float in 1983, Paul Keating’s concerns later of the danger of us becoming a banana republic suggest Stone correctly advised implementing other regulatory and policy changes with the float.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Election Campaign Start? No Comprehensive Coalition Policy; Cabinet Re-Shuffle Needed; Mistakes Made By Climate Warmists; Others Have Walls

Des Moore — Thu, 17 Jan 2019 03:59:31 +0000

Unofficial Election Campaign Starts – But Slowly

While Morrison says he will not attempt an early election, the New Year is seeing the re- emergence of debate on issues such as border controls. It is pointed out that, while “Labor softened its asylum-seeker policy at its national conference last month by formally endorsing doctor-ordered medical evacuations off Manus Island and Nauru, it remains committed to boat turnbacks when safe to do so, offshore processing and regional resettlement.” But Morrison claims “they will abolish temporary protections visas and last year voted to end offshore processing as we know it in the parliament. And they had no clue what they had done’’ (see Dispute over OZ Border Policy).

However, the most “issues-attention” has been given by Treasurer Frydenberg and Home Affairs Minister Dutton and there is no sign yet of a more comprehensive presentation of Coalition policies even though Turnbull has gone and he seems to receive less media coverage. The decision by Morrison to make the present official visit to Vanuatu and Fiji is obviously driven mainly by the increasing attention being given by the Chinese to Pacific Islands. But the development of a comprehensive Coalition policy seems more important and the Foreign Affairs Minister should be able to handle the Pacific Islands. True, a more knowledgeable/presentable person than Payne could be useful (she was initially appointed by Morrison after Bishop resigned). Indeed, it would be desirable to have a major re-shuffle of Cabinet before the election, including the re-appointment of Abbott and Abetz.

An important election issue has emerged from the revelation in an OECD report that Australia relies on revenue from company taxes for 16 per cent of budget revenue, which is the highest share in the advanced world and compares with an advanced nation average of 9 per cent. As David Uren points out, “the failure of the Turnbull government to break the Senate gridlock last year to legislate a phased reduction in the company tax rate for big businesses to 25 per cent has left Australia among a group of 18 nations with a standard company tax rate of at least 30 per cent, nearly all of them developing nations” (see Australia Has High Company Tax Rate).

Another important election issue is, of course, energy policy and the promise to reduce electricity prices. I drew attention in the 12 January Commentary to Alan Moran’s analysis showing there is scope to start doing this by effecting a reduction in government subsidies. Recent evidence of statements by warmists which have been shown to be badly wrong could also be used as a basis for justifying the moderation of Australia’s policy.

These include a survey by the UK’s The Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by a former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, from 1983-89. The incorrect warmist sayings are summarized below for each month of 2018:

January 2018: Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: Study. PARIS (AFP) – Earth’s surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday (Jan 17) which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions. A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet’s temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

February: ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, new research reveals. The Pacific nation of Tuvalu — long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels — is actually growing in size, new research shows. A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery. It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

March: BBC forced to retract false claim about hurricanes. You may recall the above report by the BBC, which described how bad last year’s Atlantic hurricane season was, before commenting at the end: “A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5.” I fired off a complaint, which at first they did their best to dodge. After my refusal to accept their reply, they have now been forced to back down

April: Corals can withstand another 100-250 Years of climate change, new study. Heat-tolerant genes may spread through coral populations fast enough to give the marine creatures a tool to survive another 100-250 years of warming in our oceans.

May: Climate change causes beaches to grow by 3,660 square kilometers. Since 1984 humans have gushed forth 64% of our entire emissions from fossil fuels. (Fully 282,000 megatons of deplorable carbon “pollution”.) During this time, satellite images show that 24% of our beaches shrank, while 28% grew. Thus we can say that thanks to the carbon apocalypse there are 3,660 sq kms more global beaches now than there were thirty years ago.

June: Antarctica not losing ice, NASA researcher finds. NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.

July: National Geographic admits they were wrong about notorious starving polar bear-climate claims. The narrative behind the viral photo of a polar bear starving, reportedly thanks to climate change, has been called into question by the National Geographic photographer who took it in the first place.

August: New study shows declining risk and increasing resilience to extreme weather in France. This risk factor for French residents of cities stricken by a disaster has been falling with every passing decade.

September: Coral bleaching is a natural event that has gone on for centuries, new study. Coral bleaching has been a regular feature of the Great Barrier Reef for the past 400 years, with evidence of repeated mass events dating back to well before European settlement and the start of the industrial revolution.

October: Climate predictions could be wrong in UK and Europe. Current climate change predictions in the UK and parts of Europe may be inaccurate, a study conducted by researchers from the University of Lincoln, UK, and the University of Liège, Belgium, suggests.

November: Number and intensity of US hurricanes have remained constant since 1900. There’s been “no trend” in the number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the continental U.S. and the normalized damages caused by such storms over the past 117 years, according to a new study.

December: Alarmist sea level rise scenarios unlikely, says climate scientist Judith Curry. A catastrophic rise in sea levels is unlikely this century, with recent experience falling within the range of natural variability over the past several thousand years, according to a report on peer-reviewed studies by US climate scientist Judith Curry.

Today’s Australian also runs an article by climate expert Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer disparaging the claim still often made that 97 per cent of scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. Plimer asks “Is that really true? No. It is a zombie statistic. In the scientific circles I mix in, there is an overwhelming scepticism about human-induced climate change. Many of my colleagues claim that the mantra of human-induced global warming is the biggest scientific fraud of all time and future generations will pay dearly” (see Plimer Disparages 97% Consensus on Global Warming).

There are many other examples of errors, in some cases deliberately made by “scientists” including for reasons not actually scientific, which could be used as a basis for reducing the emissions target set in Paris by Malcolm Turnbull when PM, but who had no scientific expertise on the causes of climate change.

Another important development in this context is the establishment by climate expert Viv Forbes of a Saltbush Club to conduct a national campaign to support Australia’s immediate withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. Along with many others I have joined this club, which has now issued a press release pointing out, inter alia, that “Australia will suffer badly from the destructive energy policies being promoted in the UN’s war on cheap, reliable hydro-carbon fuels such as oil, diesel, gas and coal and the backbone industries that rely on them – mining and smelting, farming, fishing, forestry, processing and manufacturing” (see EXIT PARIS AGREEMENT- Break the Climate Chains Now).

Unfortunately, Morrison has already said that Australia must stick with the Paris Agreement even though it is not binding. He has probably been heavily influenced in making this decision by advice from his department, which includes staff who are strong believers in the dangerous global warming thesis. But, one way or another, he needs in the Coalition’s interests to over-rule such advice.

US Wall Policy

In the Commentary of 12 January I argued that “the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem” arising in part from the absence of adequate control on the border with Mexico and noted that Greg Sheridan took a similar view. Subsequently, Trump has “declared he will never back down from his border wall to protect Americans, paving the way for a prolonged deadlock over what is already the longest government shutdown”. This view was strengthened somewhat by “a Washington Post-ABC News poll which shows that while a majority oppose the wall, support for it has grown over the past 12 months, from 34 per cent to 42 per cent” (see Trump on Walls).

It may also be strengthened by a survey published by Breitbart showing that government agencies and prominent individuals make use of walls. The survey shows extensive photos of such walls including those constructed by Hungary, Israel and Bulgaria (on the border with Turkey) as protection against illegal migrants. The survey covers a number of prominent US politicians (including Hilary Clinton) who have opposed the funding of the Mexican wall but who have themselves used protective walls in the US (see photo of Hungary’s Border Wall).

No doubt the controversy over the wall and the partial shut-down in Washington will continue. The latest development is an attempt by Speaker Pelosi to alter the State of Union address by Trump scheduled for 29 January. It appears that her reasons for alteration are rejected even by Democrat-leaning media (see Pelosi Tries to Postpone State of Union Address).

Newspoll

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

Long Way To Go

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morrison Still Short on Leadership

Des Moore — Sat, 15 Sep 2018 21:32:50 +0000

We ended last week’s session of Federal Parliament with Morrison still in a precarious position and with another week in parliament to come. He has received some favourable publicity from his energetic en tour of some electorates and from his aggressive handling of parliament. However, his request for support from parliamentary colleagues on Thursday night by the raising of hands to a song left a good deal to be desired and he subsequently acknowledged that “the full lyrics … were just not OK” (see report published in today’s Sunday Fairfax and reproduced above in Morrison’s Performance in Parliament) . And the message he (and others) received from Turnbull from New York , which suggested that Dutton’s position as an MP should be checked by the High Court, did not help, all the more so as reports also suggest Turnbull has been leaking about his (Morrison’s) behaviour.

However, such action by Turnbull has revealed publicly that he was not really a supporter of the traditional Liberal party but of himself and that he aimed to destroy that kind of party. The publication in the Weekend Australian of letters criticising the behaviour of both Turnbull and Bishop (see Letters Recognise Turnbull/Bishop) illustrates this and should make it easier for Morrison to discard some of the Turnbull policies even though he was party to them.

But as political editor Shanahan points out in Weekend Australian, “the atmosphere within the Liberal Party is now toxic enough to reduce Scott Morrison’s chances of electoral victory from improbable to impossible, with personal vendettas, factional payback, paranoia and delusion taking hold of a sufficient number of Liberal members to destroy the Coalition government”.

Shanahan argues that Morrison has to “sell himself to the voting public, he has to unite the Liberal Party while not giving in totally to the demands of conservatives or moderates, he has to deal with damaging claims of bullying and gender imbalance within the parliamentary party, he has to try to silence Turnbull, he has to win the Wentworth by-election, he has to prevent a High Court referral for Dutton, mollify Tony Abbott and Joyce, stop any crossing of the floor, damage Bill Shorten, lift the Liberal Party out of its lowest, longest of primary vote slump in Newspoll history and turn around Coalition support from an equal record low to a winnable position in less time than it took John Howard in 2001”.

“On the policy side he has to make up for a neglect of farmers in drought, demonstrate he can get power prices down, continue to keep the economy growing, reassure the electorate on the immigration rate and embark on infrastructure projects such as dams, rail and power generation” (see Shanahan on Morrison).

But it is on policy that Morrison is behind the ball game. Some say that as a new leader he needs to be given more time. But he has had Cabinet experience since 2015, starting under Abbott, and is well aware of the key policy issues facing the Coalition. Yet he finds it difficult to lead the policy direction in which the new government should direct itself after Turnbull. This raises concern as to how, given the several public praises he made of Turnbull, different he really is.

It may be leading him down different tracks. One may be to indicate that inquiries will be established rather than new policies, such as his announcement today that there will be a Royal Commission on Aged Care but without giving any terms of reference and without regard to the many inquiries that have been held on age care (see Aged Care Royal Cn). Meantime policy remains extant. Another approach may be to simply say that there are problems with certain policies but without indicating what they are. One important area here is religion, for which he has indicated he will take personal responsibility. Given that he actively follows a religion (Pentecostalism) which is Christian but unusual, and has quite a large following in Australia (about 200,000), this opens the possibility that he will not be critical of other small (for the present) religions such as Islam (early in my Commentary series he sent me a reply implying acceptance without question of Islamism).

But the most important immediate problem with policy that he has spoken about is energy policy. My previous Commentary have already drawn attention to the apparent contradiction between his policy of, on the one hand, reducing electricity prices and, on the other hand, retaining the emissions reduction and renewable increases targets. Neither he nor his Minister of Energy (Taylor) have acknowledged any contradiction and seem to be indicating that there will be some form of price control that ensures prices will be reduced. But realistically this can only happen with government intervention and/or increased subsidies, as well as agreements with the states. Yet there is no need to adhere to the Paris agreement on emissions reductions: many other countries are either not required to do so or simply allow their emissions not to reduce their economic growth to any marked extent. The latter course is the one which Australia should adopt.

Note in this regard that Opposition leader Shorten has confirmed today that Labor is supporting some form of NEG as instigated by Turnbull and Frydenberg (see Shorten Supports NEG). If Morrison was to announce marked changes in the targets set by Turnbull that would provide an opportunity to sensibly differentiate Coalition policies on energy from Labor’s and, at the same time, achieve reductions in power prices without government subsidies that would be potential vote winners. It would also eliminate the potential challenge which would likely emerge from Dutton and other so-called conservatives both inside and outside Federal Parliament if he continues with his existing energy policy.

Waiting for Godot?

Des Moore — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 22:08:07 +0000

Waiting for Godot?

My Commentary on 27/8 was headed “Better Than Turnbull, but …”. This qualification reflected my concern about Morrison’s decisions on the composition of Cabinet but also about the fall in the Coalition’s 44/56 TPP in the Newspoll. This suggested that he would be unlikely to be given a honeymoon and would need to get going if the Coalition is to “sell” policies which would be accepted at the next year’s election.

I followed that by sending a letter yesterday to The Australian suggesting that a statement on energy policy was urgently needed. That was not published and, although I did send it to some, I now repeat it to my full distribution list, viz

“The sacking of Malcolm Turnbull for the second time primarily because of his climate change policy must surely send a message to the Morrison government, viz most Liberal MPs reject action to reduce carbon emissions which result in higher electricity prices and reduce Australia’s competitiveness. Scott Morrison himself is reported as declining to acknowledge human induced climate change exists and has appointed an energy minister (Angus Taylor) who is reportedly sceptical about the thesis of dangerous global warming.

But what is urgently needed is a statement of policy based on Australia not leading the way in the Paris accord but giving priority to the avoidance of action which has adverse effects on our economy, as many other countries are doing. It should also indicate that the latest expert analysis here in Australia suggests that the moderate warming in temperatures is due more to natural causes than to emissions of fossil fuels. As former supervisor of the Bureau of Meteorology (William Kininmonth) concluded in yesterday’s Quadrant , “the Paris Agreement has been negotiated from faulty premises”.

Although Morrison has succeeded in getting publicity for having told new energy minister Angus Taylor that his prime task would be to reduce electricity prices, no indication has been given as to how this might be achieved and to what extent. It is relevant that earlier tonight on Sky News Andrew Bolt pointed out that it is important to make a policies announcement asap.

Also relevant to Morrison’s apparent reluctance to make such an announcement at least in general terms is the attached article by The Australian’s National Editor Simon Benson. He suggests that the composition of the Cabinet “reveals an underlying and inherited structural weakness to Morrison’s leadership” and that this “renders it potentially unstable” (see Benson on Control by Moderates).

In similar vein, Terry McCrann argues that in regard to the banks Morrison has “to deal with them in super-quick time; going to the election with a “trust us, we’ll make the banks behave, some time in the future, if we get re-elected”, just won’t do. It would also look a — potentially, very big — gift horse in the mouth. He needs to see the bad behaviour of the banks exposed by the RC not as a problem but as an opportunity; a huge opportunity on so many levels (see McCrann on Banks et al).

It is too late now to change the composition of Cabinet. Morrison will have to involve himself more closely with those portfolios where there are “structural weaknesses”. The need to get cracking is reinforced by the announcement by Julie Bishop that she will stay in Parliament and by Julia Banks (a Victorian MP who was a Turnbull strong supporter) announcing that she will not contest the seat she holds at the next election.

Already we see a fragility in Morrison’s unexpected win as PM. This may be able to be reduced by effecting a policies announcement.

A Very Important Change

Des Moore — Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:34:22 +0000

Turnbull’s Departure Very Important

The belated but successful challenge to Malcolm Turnbull after three years as Liberal leader is very important for the Coalition and for Australia -potentially. Readers of my Commentary will be aware of the adverse views which I hold on his socialistic objectives and the apparent ego which focussed him mainly on trying to make his mark through politics regardless of which side. In fact, after 3 years as leader he will be remembered as having achieved very little other than drawing attention to himself and departing from Liberal beliefs.

Had he been allowed to continue the Coalition would almost certainly have lost the election next year: now it has a winning chance, albeit much less than if he had been thrown out earlier. Turnbull’s obsessive belief in dangerous global warming led him to develop policies which have had adverse and totally unnecessary effects on electricity prices and Australia’s competitiveness, and which he would have taken further. His ventures into relaxing border controls had to be reversed and his attempt to develop more accommodative relations with the Islamic community also failed. Importantly, he was unsuccessful in promoting a multi-culturalist society. He allowed budget spending and debt to grow faster than GDP, although provision has been made for a small reduction in the size of the deficit. Despite the tax cuts, the burden of taxation has increased by about 2 percentage points of GDP.

The most worrying aspect is that he leaves those attempted illiberal policies still behind him and accompanied by a surprisingly large group of MPS who were not prepared to support the challenge. This partly reflected attempts by Turnbull to make the procedure to make the challenge by Peter Dutton much more difficult than a similar one in the past: his requirement that there be 43 signed approvalists (there were 85 voters in total) was contrary to the tradition of allowing a secret ballot (for more detail see attached Bolt on Turnbull). But there remains a too much of smell of Turnbull.

It is important that the new PM and his ministers recognise the need to toughen existing policies, particularly on climate change and the Paris agreement but also on immigration (see attachments on Bolt and McCrann). As McCrann says “both the Government and the country can well live with Scott Morrison as prime minister. This carries one big proviso: that it is the Morrison of 2010 through 2015 not the Morrison of 2016 through Thursday when he rather unconvincingly and even more embarrassingly put his arms around Malcolm Turnbull and declared “he’s my leader”.

The initial comments by both Scott Morrison and Frydenberg (who is now Treasurer) have not been encouraging. Let us hope that they quickly settle down to business and separate themselves from Turnbull. They must also offer Abbott a substantial seat in Cabinet.

Newspoll Shows Turnbull Not Acceptable PM

Des Moore — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 07:34:31 +0000

The 30th Newspoll since Turnbull challenged Abbott and won has confirmed that Labor remains well ahead on a TPP basis (52/48), although this is one percentage point lower for Labor than in March. However, Turnbull’s Better PM test also fell by a fraction (39/38) while Shorten’s was steady on 36, and he also fell on the Best Liberal leader test 30/28. At that level he is only one percentage point ahead of Bishop (28/27). The Coalition underTurnbull has now trailed Labor on two-party-preferred support for 564 days. Julia Gillard’s government trailed the Coalition for 521 consecutive days, Abbott’s government trailed Labor for 493 days while Howard’s longest period trailing Labor was 364 days (see PM has 30 Poll Losses).

The reasons for Turnbull’s failure are reflected in eight leadership quality measures assessed for The Australian by Newspoll. It shows that Shorten has drawn level on having a vision for Australia after Turnbull dropped from 66 to 59 per cent in two years and, as to being in touch with voters, Turnbull has dropped from 54 per cent in February 2016 to 42 per cent (see Turnbull Marked Down on Qualities).

The apparent downward trend in Turnbull’s acceptance as PM, and the increased difficulty the Coalition faces in securing policy reforms such as in energy policy, makes it increasingly unlikely that the Coalition will close the gap with Labor, let alone get ahead. There is no sign that Turnbull contemplates initiating major changes in policy, such as workplace relations which now has a junior minister in charge, which might constitute a substantial challenge to Labor.

Yet, while there are varied reactions to the poll, it seems that no Liberal Party member is prepared to challenge Turnbull. Abbott rejected the idea and, although Dutton has made a comment today that he would like to be PM, he gave no indication that he would challenge if Turnbull didn’t announce certain policy changes (see Varied Reactions to Poll).

Turnbull will of course hang on to the Prime Ministership for as long as he can and is likely to wait to the last possible moment before calling an election. He is more interested in himself than the nation.

Overall, it looks as though Australians will experience a dismal period of governance over the next year or so.

Potential for Major Improvements in Governance in Iran

Des Moore — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 01:20:02 +0000

In my Commentary of 1 January I drew attention to the absence of any substantive references in our media to the successful defeat of the ISIS caliphate by Iraqi and Syrian forces, with support provided by US and Australian forces. I drew particular attention to Trump’s delegation of decision-making to Secretary Tillerson and commanders in the field and to his indication that the defeat of ISIS was a priority. This contrasted with the dire situation a year ago described in a special press briefing given on 22 December by the US envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS (this was not reported in our media). His description of “a dire situation” may have reflected Obama’s policy of first requiring his clearance to take military action and his refusal to have US troops on the ground in Iraq (except for Special Forces).

For Australia a joint announcement of the defeat of the ISIS caliphate was made on 10 December by the PM and Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence and the announced withdrawal of Australian strike aircraft (but the retention of Australian training assistance and Special Forces to contribute to the on-going threat from IS groups) was made on 22 Dec by our Defence Minister, Marise Payne. In neither case was there any reference to the possible influence on Islamist beliefs elsewhere or on Australian policy in regard to Islamic influences on governments generally. My Commentary did suggest however that the reported “widespread protests in Iran provides an opportunity for political leaders in the West (including Australia) to call for a more democratic society and protection of human rights in that country”.

Since my Commentary was circulated it is apparent from press reports and TV news that the protests in Iran are not only widespread across the country but seem also to be widespread across Iranian citizens. Calls for the resignation of President Hassan Rouhani (“elected” in 2013 and “re-elected” last May) and of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni have been accompanied by calls of “Death” for them, and TV footage has shown attacks on police in the streets.

The article below published in the Wall St Journal on 1 Jan rejects the proposal that Trump say nothing and argues that Iranian protesters are looking for American support. Trump himself has tweeted in favourable and has said that the US is “watching” for breaches of human rights. Two other articles attached provide analysis of probable reasons for the outbreak of protests on such a wide scale. Note that the first article claims that “Tehran is estimated to be channelling up to $26 billion to Damascus in investment and aid each year, and 1000 Iranians have died in the conflict there, according to an official statement. The true number is likely to be far higher”. Second article here.

There is potential for a major change in governance in Iran, particularly a reduction in the power of Islam and a diminution of the power of the Supreme Leader, which Australia should support. Turnbull should follow Trump and make a brief statement (but not a tweet!) saying that we support in Iran more democratic governance and increased protection of human rights. Any such development would also have an influence beyond Iran into other areas in the Middle East.

Polling Shows Further Coalition Falls

Des Moore — Sat, 11 Nov 2017 20:02:46 +0000

Constitutional or Dual Citizenship “Crises”?

The announcement of Alexander’s resignation as an MP for Bennelong (and a by-election on December 16), and indications that at least three Labor MPs may be dual citizens as defined under Section 44 of the Constitution, raises a question as to whether Parliament will be functioning for a period as an effective political entity. Of course, after a series of by-elections next year Parliament can again become a body containing all “genuine” Australians. But should it make decisions on policies in the meantime or hold a general election that would bring the dual citizenship issue to a head?

Turnbull claims that, assuming Barnaby Joyce is re-elected on 2 December, the Coalition will hold 75 out of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives and also have assurances from sufficient of the 5 non-Labor MPs to support the Coalition if it is faced with a no-confidence motion or a denial of “supply” sufficient to operate government. It will be recalled that in 1975 the Senate “delayed” voting on supply unless the government agreed to call an election, but Whitlam’s refusal to do so led to his dismissal by the GG. But there is no such Constitutional “crisis” in prospect now and nor does there seem to be a dual citizenship crisis which prevents the effective functioning of Parliament. Accordingly, even though his support in Parliament may largely be assured to no confidence motions, Turnbull’s refusal to hold a general election therefore appears justified in this context.

In an article in the Weekend Financial Review, constitutional expert Prof Anne Twomey considers various possible situations, including that the GG could have grounds for dismissing a PM from “such as failures to secure the passage of supply or being defeated on a confidence motion and refusing to resign or request a dissolution”. But she says that “As the PM has already been commissioned to form a government, he has the right to continue to govern until he resigns or is defeated on a matter of confidence on the floor of the House”. She adds that “as sufficient time has now passed since the 2016 election, it would be highly unlikely the Governor-General would refuse a dissolution” (Copy of article is not available digitally).

But a Serious Political Crisis Exists

But there is a serious political crisis in that Turnbull has long ceased to be an effective leader and the Coalition has experienced for a considerable period polling which shows a large negative gap on a TPP basis. An advance copy of tomorrow’s Newspoll released tonight shows that the Coalition’s TPP has actually deteriorated further to 45/55 (from the last 46/54) and Turnbull’s lead as Better PM has been reduced to only 36/34 (from 41/33). He is also rated within the Liberal Party as second to Bishop (27/43). Relevant also is a “special” Newspoll on 31 October which showed that, despite Turnbull’s assertions that Australia must stick to the Paris agreement to cut CO2 emissions by 26-28% by 2030, a withdrawal was supported by 45% with 40% wanting to stay in.

Turnbull’s rushed announcement, with Frydenberg, of a National Energy Guarantee scheme in late October is a recent example of the mis-handling of the increased electricity prices problem which originates mainly from his environment policies. He said it would reduce wholesale generation costs by 20-25% but based his claim on seemingly one-sided advice from “experts” outside the public service and who provided no back-up analysis. Since then some Coalition MPs have given public indications of dissatisfaction with Turnbull’s leadership and his apparent inability to implement policies which are effective and of acceptable costs. Turnbull’s response (sic) has been to take two “official” visits overseas and arrange for substantial TV photo shots for the home audience.

This week-end economist Judith Sloan has outlined significant deficiencies in a number of policies adopted by the Turnbull government and concludes that “the policy record of the Coalition government has been a crushing disappointment. It has been too keen to continue to embark on large-scale government schemes — NBN, Gonski, NDIS — knowing full well that these endeavours almost always end in tears while eating through masses of tax revenue. It has made some monumental mistakes by dithering — VET FEE-HELP, for example — and it has simply refused to do the obvious by reducing the permanent immigration intake to take the pressure off our two largest cities. Most important, it has forgotten the maxim that good policy is good politics” (see Coalition Policy Failures).

In short, there is now an even stronger case to replace Turnbull and for the new leader to call a general election in February next year.

Is It Too Late to Change Leadership?

Some commentators argue that it is now “too late” to change leadership. The Australian’s major political commentator, Paul Kelly, for example, argued that “any new leader would inherit a broken party and would face the exact same problem as Turnbull without the instruments to resolve the crisis and with the certainty of being undermined at once by looming by-elections and the threat of minority government.” Yet the risk is that a continuation with Turnbull as leader will likely worsen not only the electoral outcome but the division within the Liberal Party after the election.

Both the latest Newspoll and the latest polling in the Queensland election confirm a worsening outlook for the Coalition. A Galaxy poll of 900 Queenslanders last week showed support for the LNP had dropped to a five-year low of 32 per cent ahead of the state election while the Labor vote was unmoved at 35 per cent. While neither major party is likely to win a majority, and would have to rely on One Nation (whose polling is strong) and independents to form government, such an outcome would be bad news for the Coalition at the federal level and in regard to subsequent internal divisions.

Another commentator from The Australian, Chris Kenny, has adopted a more realistic assessment: “We approach the end of 2017 seemingly ungoverned and almost ungovernable. The Prime Minister is paralysed by indecision and surrounded by obstacles. The parliament is fragmented and intransigent. Labor is obstructive and ascendant. The media is Balkanised and superficial. Universities, bureaucracies and public broadcasters are activist and misleading”.

Kenny acknowledges that “Some of the wisest heads in parliament and punditry point out that the modern habit of leadership switching is fatal. To dump another prime minister, like another swipe on political Tinder, runs the risk of confirming the shallowness of the enterprise”. But he argues that “there is a large counterpoint to this assessment and that is that the person who created this scenario was Turnbull. The Coalition should have learned all the lessons about stability, weathering difficult times and avoiding leadership convulsions. But Turnbull took them down this path in 2015, inviting intense pressure to perform and a hellish denouement for failure. Voters know this. It is why the Coalition has lost standing in the polls, not to Labor but to breakaways on the right”.

In Kenny’s view, a leadership alternative does exist currently if it is what he describes as a “reversion” viz

“a return to Abbott cannot be ruled out because it would reinstall someone elected in a landslide in 2013 and robbed of a chance at re-election. Marginal MPs know Abbott would fight Shorten on core issues dividing the major parties. He is not popular but he has legitimacy and known campaigning skills. As has been the case since 2009, Turnbull and Abbott remain the only Coalition options this side of an election” (see Kenny on Turnbull/ Abbott). It must be doubted that, while Bishop might be regarded as a reversion, she would be an effective opponent to Shorten and an effective representative of Liberal philosophy.