Institute for Private Enterprise » Muslim

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.

US Defence & Immigration Policies; US/China Trade; OZ Energy Policy

Des Moore — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 04:57:09 +0000

Where Does US Defence Policy Stand Now

Trump’s sudden announcement that the US intends to “immediately withdraw” troops from Syria (and much reduced troops for Afghanistan) has caused much confusion as to US defence policy and, following the resignation of Mattis as Defence Secretary, Trump has found it difficult to get a replacement. While consistent with his election manifesto, Trump appears to have recognised that he was being too hasty and it appears he has accepted the view of National Security adviser, John Bolton, that the withdrawal be extended over a longer period and that it should first involve the elimination of IS (which Trump initially claimed had been achieved). Even so, policy uncertainty remains.

This has been increased by an address made by US Secretary of State Pompeo in Cairo, who declared the US was committed to “expel every last Iranian boot” from Syria where, in alliance with Russia, Tehran, in its drive for regional hegemony, has been propping up the murderous Assad regime. Without mentioning Mr Obama by name, Mr Pompeo heaped scorn on the former president’s “misguided” thinking on the use of military force and reluctance to call out “radical Islam”. That was a reference to Mr Obama’s preference for the term “violent extremism” when referring to Islamist terrorism and his call for an “opening towards Muslims” that would “transcend stereotypes”.

“Remember: it was here, here in this very city, another American stood before you … he told you that radical terrorism does not stem from ideology. He told you 9/11 led my country to abandon its ideals in the Middle East,” Mr Pompeo said as he argued Mr Obama had misjudged the Arab Spring uprisings. The Obama administration’s Middle East policy, he said, was an example of “what not to do”, whether in striking the nuclear deal or abandoning long-time ally Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s ruler, allowing him to be brought down by an uprising orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood” (see Pompeo on US Middle East Policy).

It is difficult to see how Pompeo’s statements can be reconciled with Trump’s.

Who Will Break the Deadlock on Mexican Wall?

The refusal by Democrat’s House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer to give Trump approval (in the House) for any finance for building the border wall with Mexico poses a challenge to Trump now facing a majority in the House. In return, Trump has refused to approve finance for a large number of federal government employees and has threatened to declare a national emergency which (it appears) would allow him to obtain indirectly finance for the wall. But Trump says he is “not yet” taking such action.

Trump has defended his position not with a tweeter but by making his first formal address from the Oval Office (see Text of Trump’s Address on Border) and has announced that he will not now attend the Davos meeting in Switzerland which purports to give major international leaders an opportunity to expound their international policies.He is also reported as actively promoting his view particularly in the south of US.

The Democrats are using the opportunity to remind people not only of their new majority position in the House but also of the problems which Trump is experiencing on implementing some of the various policies he advocates and the problems created by the partial shut-down of the federal government. However, the Democrats are not reported as addressing the illegal immigrant problem which previous Presidents have acknowledged and, in respect of which, some have supported cross Mexican border measures, albeit not one stretching across the country as Trump promised in his election manifesto.

In an editorial yesterday The Australian points out that “in 2017 the number of undocumented migrants apprehended for crossing into the US was just over 300,000, the lowest number in 46 years. In a year, however, that figure has jumped to 400,000. A Morning Consult/Politico poll shows 42 per cent of Americans believe there is a “crisis” on the border, 12 per cent perceive it as “a problem” and only 12 per cent see nothing amiss; Democratic leaders would be wise not to ignore those numbers” (see Merits in Border Security).

In short, the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem, although he should have started to do that some time ago when he had control of both houses. He did of course attempt early in his Presidency to limit immigrants from seven mainly Muslim countries and there has been an ongoing debate in the US on the extent of controls on immigrants. The increasing immigrant policy problem faced by various countries, including the development of the UK’s English Channel problem (see Migrants Attempting to Cross English Channel), may now attract more support in the US for some tightening of controls.

As Greg Sheridan points out, “it is legitimate for Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi and other Democrats to argue that Trump is proposing a bigger wall than that which they previously supported, or that they have changed their minds. What is not legitimate is to claim that Trump’s proposed wall — refashioned rhetorically now into a barrier, and to be made of steel rather than concrete — is a unique crime against the very essence of humanity and decency. And the wall or barrier or fence that Trump wants to build would certainly help control illegal immigration. So, as ever, there is a good deal of plain common sense in the Trump proposal and it is also what he promised on the election trail … In the next few days Trump will either escalate, by declaring a national emergency and using extraordinary powers — which would be ridiculous but might be effective politically — or capitulate, with some minimal face-saving compromise. In the meantime he has again succeeded in being the trapeze artist from whom no one can avert their eyes” (see Sheridan on Trump’s Wall Explanation).

The Morrison government has made no comment on this matter. Without supporting Trump’s building of the wall, it would be appropriate in circumstances where there is a general public discussion on immigration policy for Australia to indicate support of the US’s attempts to establish an effective regulatory system to control migrants. That is, of course, a potential major election issue here.

US Trade With China

An article published in the Wall St Journal reports that talks on US/China trade have resumed and that this constitutes “a show of Beijing’s seriousness”. At this stage the representatives on each side are not the most senior but the preparedness of China to engage in talks follows an agreement reached between Trump and Xi in December that the US would suspend until March tariff increases on $US200 bn of Chinese imports and thereby give the Chinese time to address what the US regards as unfair trade and economic practices (China became a member of the World Trade Organisation in 2001).

China has an enormous trade surplus with the US, with in 2017 its exports to the US amounting to $506bn and its imports from the US only $130bn (see China’s Large Trade Surplus With US). This appears to confirm that Trump has correctly threatened trade action against China not for protectionist reasons per se but because China is not conforming with WTO rules. Even so, the various aspects discussed in the attached indicate the complexity attached to any unwinding of Chinese restrictions, which extend to investment in China. As a major source for Australian exports, it is important that a satisfactory outcome be achieved.

Energy Policy

In my Commentary of 1 Jan I drew attention to the Morrison government’s decision to carry-over emissions credits obtained under the Kyoto agreements and that this meant that Australia’s emissions reduction target of 26% by 2030, as agreed by Turnbull, will in practice be much less. I also noted that, as a result, the Coalition is an even better position than it was to contrast the adverse economic effects with Labor’s much larger target of a 50% reduction by 2030.

However, there remains much that needs to be done to effect a reduction in electricity prices and the operation of the electricity market. In his analysis of the problems that still exist, climate expert Alan Moran pointed out on January 9 that the latest report by the Energy Regulator, “in line with other official analyses, hugely understated how the electricity market has been undermined by 15 years of government subsidies to the inherently low-quality supply that is wind/solar” (see The Australian Energy Regulator’s Wholesale electricity market performance report).Moran offers a disheartening conclusion as follows:

“Its analytical shortcomings aside, the report’s call for stable policy is a forlorn one. With half a dozen major Commonwealth policy direction changes since 2001 (and many others at the state level) there is zero prospect of policy stability. There never can be such stability when energy policy is inextricably tied to emission reduction policy and the targets for renewable energy vary from zero to 100 per cent”.

If the Morrison government can further moderate its energy policy, it would increase its electoral chances. But as John Roskam said last Friday in an article in the AFR “The Liberals are terrified to talk about industrial relations, they don’t have an energy policy and on questions of values such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion they can’t agree among themselves on a position”. A lot of policy changes are needed.

“Far Right” Views Assessed; France Crisis

Des Moore — Wed, 09 Jan 2019 11:50:31 +0000

Senator Anning Stirs the Migrant Pot But Morrison Misses Opportunity

It is not clear whether or not Senator Anning’s attendance at a small St Kilda protest rally was intended to stir public discussion and comments from Morrison and Shorten. But this has happened and some points made in my Commentary on Monday have also been reflected in that discussion. Importantly, The Australian has published a number of letters (see OZ Letters on “Far-Right”), including my own as what is sometimes called the lead letter, viz

Not just extreme Right who have migrant concerns

The Australian, Letters, 12:00AM January 9, 2019 (Ed deleted bits in square brackets)

Your coverage of the [small]protest rally on St Kilda beach attended by Queensland senator Fraser Anning draws attention to his unverified relationship with Vietnamese traders who had been disrupted by youths of African origin [and] who had also caused disruption at the very same beach (”Anning not with us: Vietnamese”, 8/1). [Anning acquired his Senate seat through the back door and is no longer a member of a party. And while he is claiming his expenses, it seems that is legitimate]

[True,] Anning is said to have a “far Right” view but his expressed concern about immigrants having Islamic characteristics or having African origin may not be confined to those with a “far Right” view. As indicated by the recent debate on immigration, most Australians recognise there is limited absorption capacity both in terms of numbers and characteristics which extend beyond our Euro-Judeo culture.

The UK is attempting to stop illegal immigration across the English channel from many who see it as an El Dorado. And while France is still officially welcoming migrants, surveys reveal a majority of the French population want immigration halted or regulated drastically. That President Macron’s polling has fallen to only 18 per cent, and that changes are favoured to the hundreds of no-go zones under the control of imams and Muslim gangs, indicates the importance of having an acceptable population mix from immigrants.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

My main intention was to refer to the possible implications of one of Anning’s reported observations at the rally (“I would not bring any more Muslims or Sudanese in the country. I would put a ban on that. And if any of them committed a crime, I would be shipping them home to where they came from”). As is evident from the heading made by The Australian to its main published letters the key point is that it is “Not just extreme Right who have migrant concerns”.

My letter, and Monday’s Commentary, sought to draw attention to other countries which have “migrant concerns”, notably France now led by President Macron with polling of only 18 percent and a “far-right” Marie le Pen hot on his trail. The latest report on the French crisis indicates that the French PM has taken over from Macron the handling of the “yellow vesters” and some arrests are being made (see French PM To Respond To Vesters). But it appears that France has become ungovernable unless imprisonment action is taken against violent groups, who might even include some in the Antifa movement whose members here took part in our St Kilda rally (see PS below). Other European countries have migrant concerns as indeed does the United States, with Trump about to make a major statement in support of constructing a wall to help control migrants entering from Mexico.

But most remarkable is the failure of Morrison to use the public discussion/debate on Anning and the rally to recognise that Australia itself has “migrant concerns”. In Monday’s Commentary of 7 January I noted that both Morrison and Shorten deemed it necessary to criticise Anning’s attendance at the rally and quoted Morrison as saying that “Australians are not anti-migrant nor racist. Genuine concerns held by fair minded Australians about immigration levels, border protection or law and order should not be used as a cover or be hijacked to push hateful and ugly racist agendas.”“As I did yesterday, I’ll always be prepared to call out extremism in all its forms.”

But immigration policy is not simply “calling out extremism in all its forms”. While there is no media statement for 6 January on Morrison’s media releases web, it appears that he has missed the opportunity to make a general statement along the lines that, as I say in my letter, “most Australians recognise there is limited absorption capacity both in terms of numbers and characteristics which extend beyond our Euro-Judeo culture”. Some such observation would likely put the Coalition ahead of Labor on an important policy issue.

I note that the letter published by The Australian from a Mr Jeremy Browne refers to the Antifa movement being at the St Kilda rally. That movement has US origins but is described in Wikepedia as “a conglomeration of left wing autonomous, militant anti-fascist groups in the United States. The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action. They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right. Conflicts are both online and in real life. They tend to be anti-capitalist and they are predominantly far-left and militant left, which includes anarchists, communists and socialists. Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than through electoral means”. It seems likely that it was people belonging to this movement who ensured that the rally was not a peaceful one.

New Measures to Stop Terrorists; Morrison Attacks Labor’s Energy Policy

Des Moore — Thu, 22 Nov 2018 03:42:07 +0000

Possible Additional Measures to Stop Terrorists

Not surprisingly there has been no response to my suggestion in yesterday’s Commentary that Victorian Attorney General Pakula should resign because he falsely told Victorians that the Victorian police had not received information from Federal agencies indicating that Shire Ali was a jihadist. Now, we also know that, for six days, Victorian Premier Andrews “kept to himself the fact that Shire Ali … had actually been out on bail” (see Bolt on Muslim Immigrants).

This mishandling by Victorian ministers and police of the Shire Ali incident could have cost more than one life but fortunately they recognized the risk in time to arrest the three jihadists who had been planning for some months to attack a crowd in Melbourne. But the mishandling of Shire Ali case reflects the generally poor administration by Victorian Labor as outlined in today’s Herald Sun (see Victoria Under Andrews).

Opposition leader Matthew Guy did not take full advantage of this poor administration when he debated Andrews last night at a public forum (the only one of such happenings during the election) and, in particular, he should have made more use of the mishandling of the Shire Ali incident and the gangs of Sudanese. There are more examples quoted in the above piece by Bolt, who suggests that “Victoria takes the cake”.

The most encouraging development in handling terrorism is this morning’s report that “the Morrison government is preparing to strip extremists of their Australian citizenship if they are entitled to acquire a foreign one based on where they, their parents or even their grandparents were born. The plan to deport terrorists who are solely Australian citizens is also understood to have been discussed at the high-level National Security Committee of Cabinet and the indication that the government is also planning to announce strong new laws around dual-national terrorists living in Australia. The current legislation is unworkable because it requires an extremist to have been convicted of a terror offence with a sentence of six years or more before they can be booted out of the country” (see Possible Additions to Anti-Terrorist Legislation). Some more details are in Terrorist Laws to be Tightened before Xmas.

If the changed laws can be passed by Parliament before Christmas, it will be the most important action taken since the Morrison government started and may indicate that Morrison is more clearly separating himself from Turnbull, who is reported as taking action to try to prevent Abbott from standing in his electorate and generally undermining the Liberal party. It appears that several branches of the Liberal Party in NSW favour expelling Turnbull from the party (see Turnbull Sabotages Libs). Such action would not be supported by Morrison, and would pose difficulties for the so-called moderate section of the party, but Turnbull’s views will have a much reduced influence.

Energy Policy

Meantime there are signs that the Morrison government may be prepared to modify its climate change policy in response to Shorten’s announcement of Labor’s energy policy. It is reported that Morrison “lashed out at Mr Shorten’s energy policy, which promises to put $15 billion into fixing the national energy network and subsidising solar storage batteries for 100,000 households”. Dutton has also joined the offensive against Labor’s planned $2000 handout for home battery installations, invoking Kevin Rudd’s botched home insulation scheme and the “Cash for Clunkers” program this morning as he dismissed Mr Shorten’s plan. “This pink batteries debacle is like the Cash for Clunkers,” he told 2GB, “These people just don’t learn the lesson.” (see Labor’s Energy Policy on Batteries).

If the Coalition can at least modify its present emissions reduction policy as part of an attack on Labor’s policy, that could also improve its polling. The fact that Dutton has joined the attack, which would not have happened under Turnbull’s leadership, is promising.

Three More Terrorists; Fairfax/Ipso Poll; Immigration Policy

Des Moore — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:50:45 +0000

Serious Deficiencies In Security Revealed in Victoria

In my Commentary published on 18 November I suggested the handling of the Bourke St incident indicated serious deficiencies. This has been confirmed by developments since then.

Most important has been the statement by Victorian Attorney General Pakula that Victorian police had not received information from federal sources which would warrant them acting to at least monitor the now dead Muslim terrorist, Shire Ali. But Victorian police chief Ashton subsequently announced that they had in fact received the necessary federal information. This prompted me to send a letter to the press arguing that Pakula should resign but, as he has stuck to his guns and has been supported by Victorian Premier Andrews, that won’t happen a couple of days before the election (see OZ on Bourke St Terrorist Revelationsand Pakula Claims Not Informed of Terrorists Passport Withdrawal).

My letter was published in today’s Australian (see below) and the Herald Sun published a slightly different version

Fix terror tracking

The Australian, Letters, November 21

Following the killing of Sisto Malaspina by terrorist Hassan Khalif Shire Ali and the many questions about the performance of security, police services and Victorian ministers, three men have now been arrested over another alleged terrorist plot (“Melbourne terror raids: three men charged over plot designed for ‘maximum casualties’”, 20/11).

While the capacity of protective services to prevent terrorism is limited, it must be given top priority in monitoring suspects. But despite removal of his passport, and frequent attendance at Muslim prayer bodies, Shire Ali was not.

Information about potential activists must be fully exchanged between state and federal agencies and ministers. Despite the initial denial by Victorian Attorney-General Pakula (“ASIO, Home Affairs contradict Martin Pakula on Shire Ali’s passport”, 19/11), this now appears to have been the case. This avoidance of facts, and failure to stop Shire Ali, calls for the resignation of Pakula.

Most importantly, federal and state governments need to review what appear to be serious deficiencies in arrangements for preventing terrorist activity.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Debate on this incident will doubtless continue but public attention moved yesterday to the announcement by Victorian police that three Muslims had been arrested as terrorists. It appears that these three had been planning a shooting expedition into a large crowd and their planning had been followed by police for some months despite their use of encryptions (see Objectives of Three Terrorists). Note that they were influenced by“Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric who was killed in a drone attack and whose hate sermons inspired two of America’s worst terror attacks: the Pulse Nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida, and the San Bernardino shooting”.

The report also reveals that “Armagan Eriklioglu, the father of two brothers in the alleged terror cell, posted a link to a Turkish-language Islamic State Facebook –account”. He was not arrested yesterday and the report says he “is not suspected of being part of his sons’ alleged plans”, which seems surprising.

It is possible that this decision by Victorian police to arrest three was timed in order to demonstrate their efficiency (sic) after their poor performance in handling Shire Ali!

As to encryptions, Home Affairs Minister Dutton took the opportunity to call for “the Intelligence Committee today within the parliament to return their advice back to parliament very quickly because this is legislation the government needs to deal with very quickly,” he told reporters. “We have a bill before the parliament that provides the appropriate safety mechanisms, the privacy protections in place, but it allows police and ASIO to do their jobs in relation to these terrorist investigations”. “Mr Shorten has been opposed to this legislation but he needs to review his position as well. We are in a position of vulnerability” (see Dutton Seeks Shorten’s Support on Encryption).

Fairfax-Ipsos Poll Shows Increased Coalition Rating

The Fairfax/Ipsos poll for Nov 14-17 shows an increase in the Coalition’s rating to 48/52 TPP from 45/55 in Oct 10-13. At this level the Morrison government is at a higher rating than the Turnbull one was when he was deposed. But there is still a long way to go for the Coalition and Morrison’s personal performance rating fell to 48 per cent from 50 per cent and his preferred PM rating also fell by a percentage point to 47.

The poll also asked pollers about their views on Energy Policy and Immigrants from Muslim countries, viz

Main energy priority for Government is 47% for Reduce Household Bills cf with 39% for Reduce Emissions.This suggests that, once the cost of reducing emissions hits bank accounts, there is a tendency to reduce support for measures which add to living costs. If the Morrison government were to reduce the cost of emissions (and hence Household Bills) that would likely further reduce support for the mythical dangerous warming thesis.
For views on Immigrants from Muslim countries, 47% say they should be reduced (cf 45% in previous poll) compared with 35% who voted for them to stay the same (cf 29% in previous poll). Those favouring an increase fell from 23% to 14%. As this poll was taken before the Bourke St killing, it probably understates those who think Muslim immigrants should be reduced, as does the latest arrest of three Muslims. A more appropriate assessment would likely occur if the government were to publish an information paper on Muslim beliefs (see Fairfax-Ipso Poll Opposes Increased Muslims)

Immigration Statement by Morrison

In his so-called population speech on Monday, Morrison “floated the idea of reducing the permanent migration cap by about 30,000 people a year. This would bring the maximum permanent intake to the level to which it has fallen in the past year, despite the current cap being 190,000. The population plan will be discussed at the next meeting between state and federal governments on December 12” (see Possible Immigration Targets).

While Labor has indicated it may support a reduction, this is a disappointing response to the many commentators who have argued for a higher reduction figure and to the decision not being made by the Federal government, which should be the policy determinant.

However, Morrison is reported as saying that “Australia will refuse to sign up to the UN’s migration pact, which has already been rejected by the US and several European countries, on the grounds it would weaken border security and undermine the annual immigration program”. He took the position that the compact is

“contrary to the national interest and would be used against Australia by critics of its border policies”. “I’m not going to sign up to an agreement that I believe will only be used by those who have always tried to tear our stronger border policies down”… “I experienced this first-hand back when I was responsible for stopping the boats. We must always decide on these issues and not have our laws undermined by outside influences” … and has a “fundamental flaw” in failing “to distinguish between illegal and “proper” migration when it came to the provision of welfare benefits” (see Australia Not Signing UN Global Migrant Pact).

Hopefully, this decision may also lead to rejecting other global agreements, such as the Paris one on climate change which is clearly not in Australia’s interests. But his statements justifying our immigration policy also need to emphasize that, while reflecting the cultural basis of our society, it is non-discriminatory. As indicated in the recent report by the Centre of Independent Studies, the social cohesion objective is an important component of immigration policy (see CIS Report on Immigration).

Continued Concern on Islamic Threat

Des Moore — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:56:09 +0000

Continued Concern on Islamic Threat

As expected, more information is emerging about the activity of radicalised Muslims and their relationship with the Hume Islamic Centre. The most worrying development reported today about the Bourke St terrorist, Shire Ali, is that he was on bail when the killing occurred and had a record of getting away with breaking previous bails. This information would have been available to the Victorian government and to senior police. In those circumstances Shire Ali should have been at least closely watched but there have been no reports that he was. More details will be available tomorrow but there is no doubt that this will become a major issue in the imminent Victorian election.

Earlier today, the Fairfax press reported that the Hume centre is where (now known) terrorists have said they have attended and presumably participated in endorsing the message conveyed by the leader (this denied by the head, Sheik Omran). Now the centre is seeking to increase the number of attendees at peak periods to up to 500. Shire Ali, who killed the owner of the coffee shop in Bourke St, apparently attended the centre, although Omran denies this too – “Shire Ali, he never came here — or once in a blue moon.” Omran, who is head of the fundamentalist Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah Association, also makes the unbelievable claim that no radicalizations have occurred at the centre.

The only body responsible for approving or denying approval to expand seems to be the local Hume Council and the major question for considering expansion seems to be whether there would be enough car parking available in the surrounding area (see Islamic Centre Seeks Expansion). One would have thought that the Federal government should also have a say and should also be informed about any radicalizations. It is possible that Australian Federal Police/ASIO have infiltrated the centre but there should be publicly available information about the centre (and any other similar ones), just as there is for normal clubs et al.

The Australian reported today that “Islamic State-aligned groups have released fresh propaganda based on Friday’s terror attack in Bourke Street, as new data showed a high incidence of violent radicalism among Australians denied their passports by security agencies. Islamic State-linked Sunni Shield Media Foundation this week released posters with images of the Bourke Street attack, including one showing attacker Hassan Khalif Shire Ali attempting to stab a police officer. Another poster contained a photo of the utility that Shire Ali set alight during his fatal jihadi mission. ‘Australia, don’t think you are away from our attacks,’ the text on the poster read”.

OZ also reports that Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton yesterday condemned the propaganda (“This demonstration shows their evil minds at work,” he said. “We will continue our efforts to counter propaganda and gather intelligence to defeat the scourge”). Bill Shorten also did so, urging “internet providers and social media companies to remove any objectionable material which encourages terrorism.” The Opposition Leader said “We all have an obligation to ensure it is not disseminated further and doesn’t reach vulnerable young people.”

What this so-called propaganda seems aimed to do is not only to excuse the terrorist but also attract Muslims to radicalise. The phrase “Australia, don’t think you are away from our attacks” used above might be subject to legal action against the person responsible for making the poster. It certainly calls for a response from the body responsible for our national security – the federal government.

The Australian has also published a considerable number of letters expressing concern at what has happened and at the apparent influence of Islam. My letter was also published, albeit in a heavily edited form, and is set out below.

It’s Chilling to See Would-Be Killers Laughing in Court

Letter Published in The Australian, 16 Nov 2018 (Square bracketed bits deleted by Ed)

“PM Morrison should be applauded for his sensible statements on [Australia’s sixth deadly] the Islamic terrorist attack which occurred in Melbourne, as should your editorial in asserting that “Islamist terrorism must be confronted, not denied” (14/11). But with a Muslim community having [, surveys suggest,] a [not in] significant proportion who support the beliefs of Muhammad in the Koran, the question is what action might be taken to limit deadly attacks.

[First, the government should publish a paper providing to Australians the extent of the beliefs of Muhammad, why they are still accepted by some today, the extent of the threat to national security, and what action is being take to minimise the threat. It should include the views of leaders of our Islamic community but should also make clear that the problem is not with ‘extremists’ as such but with interpreters of the religion itself who believe in the killing of infidels including fellow Muslims.]

The government should in cooperation with the states enhance our deficient police and intelligent analysts and take steps to access the encrypted exchanges now hidden from detection. This should include the deportation of those attempting or advocating extremist action and should require mosques and prayer centres to provide special police forces with access to what is said at meetings. [As is happening now in European countries, additional funding should not be held back].

And Australia should seek agreement with other Judaeo-Christian countries to pursue such action on an international basis”.

The developments outlined above, and the widespread increased concern, call for a statement by the Federal Government on what additional protective measures it is considering and that it plans to publish an educative information paper about Islam .

More on Islamic Killing; Further Downturn in Newspoll

Des Moore — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 23:58:37 +0000

Morrison Confirms Serious Problems with Islamiscists

Last Sunday’s Commentary on the killing by a Somalian (Shire Ali) in Bourke St gave the gist of PM Morrison’s reaction that “I am the first to protect religious freedom in this country, but it also means I must be the first to call out religious extremism,” he said. “Religious extremism takes many forms around the world, and no religion is immune from it … But here in Australia, we would be kidding ourselves if we did not call out the fact that the greatest threat of religious extremism … is the radical and dangerous ideology of extremist Islam.”

Responding yesterday to queries, Morrison said that the terrorist’s past substance abuse and alleged mental health issues are an “excuse” and that he would continue to call out extremist Islam and that this is “the elephant in the room”. He pointed out that Shire Ali’s reported marital struggles and substance abuse did not deter from the fact he was radicalised. “I think that’s an excuse. This bloke, radicalised in Australia with extreme Islam, took a knife and cut down a fellow Australian on Bourke Street,” he told the Ten Network’s Studio 10 this morning. “I’m not going to make excuses … he was a terrorist. He was a radicalised extremist terrorist.”

He added that he had consulted with a Muslim community leader before he made the initial comments, and that commentators accusing him of “dog whistling” are making excuses for terror. “That is the same lame, old, tired excuse for not dealing with this problem as has always been served up,” he said. “I don’t believe that’s where the majority of decent, hard-working, respectable Australian Muslims are at. They want their communities to be safer” (see Terrorist Had Communicated With IS).

Today’s Australian reports that Mr Morrison has urged imams to identify “infiltrators’’ in their mosques and to be more alert for and proactive towards any signs of radicalisation. It describes the Prime Minister’s “forceful rhetoric” as aimed squarely at imams he believed were “looking the other way’’ when confronted with extremism in their mosques. Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has also called for Muslim community members to help bring potentially dangerous radicals to the attention of police. Morrison is reported as claiming that the “active co-operation” of Islamic leaders was required to prevent terrorism. “When you’ve got 400 people on an investigation program and 230 people with cancelled passports, there’s no way you can have active eyes on everyone,” Mr Morrison said. “No government can achieve that. This is about protecting their own communities, and their own religious communities’ integrity, because at some point a young person is always going to be vulnerable. “That’s when these infiltrators go to work. They can sniff it out and in they go. We’ve seen it time and again.”

By contrast, today’s Australian also reports Sheik Omran, the spiritual leader of the Islamic youth centre where Shire Ali attended prayer sessions, as accusing Morrison of “making the Muslim community a scapegoat to distract from the failure of police and intelligence services to prevent Friday’s attack”. Mohammed Omran, the emir of the Hume Islamic Youth Centre close to Shire Ali’s Meadow Heights home, dismissed the “bloody Prime Minister’s’’ call for imams to do more to stop Islamic extremists, saying the greatest power he had was to dial triple-0 when confronted with a threat. According to The Australian, “the HIYC, a sprawling mosque, cafe, gym and bookstore in the Melbourne suburb of Coolaroo, has seen a procession of jihadists and would-be terrorists through its doors, including domestic terror plotters and suicide bombers who killed themselves in Iraq” (see Muslim Leader’s Attack on Morrison).

Another report today confirms that Shire Ali had had contacts with Yacqub Khayre ( the man responsible for the Brighton siege last year and the murder of a receptionist) and his friends, as well as being an online friend of infamous Australian terrorist Khaled Sharrouf in 2014 (the man who posted a photo of his young son holding a severed head online in 2014) (see Ali Had Friends with Other Radicalists).

Judging by the foregoing activity of Shire Ali and his Islamic “friends” (of which more will doubtless be revealed), the anti-terrorist policies and the accommodative attitude adopted toward the Islamic community by former PM Turnbull and Victorian Premier Andrews have, even with the large increase in police and intelligent analysts, clearly been deficient. According to comments by Victorian Opposition Leader Guy, while Premier Andrews had four years to back the federal government on deportation “the government hasn’t recommended a single person for deportation in four years. Now he says this is on the agenda.” Yesterday Andrews declared the Victorian government “stands ready” to co-operate with the federal government on deportations and visas, in a break from past responses to federal intervention on state law and order (see Andrews Now Supports Deportation and Visas).

But policies need to extend much further into restricting statements by Muslim preachers et al endorsing all of the Koran. Freedom of religion is generally accepted but, in this day and age, it should not allow the preaching of death to believers in other religions.An experienced analyst of the Koran, Bill Muehelenberg, argues that “the problem is not with ‘extremists’ but with the religion itself. The religion commands its followers to kill the infidel. Its founder led the way here, leaving all Muslims a perfect example of what they should do”… “The simple truth is this: if a Christian kills in the name of Christ, he does so in total opposition to the life and teachings of Christ, and the entire New Testament. However, if a Muslim kills in the name of Allah, he has full justification to do so from the life and teachings of Muhammad, from the Koran, and from the hadith and sira” (see billmuehlenberg.com/2008/11/21/jesus-muhammad-and-violence/).

As I argued in a recent Commentary, the government should publish a paper outlining the beliefs of Muhammad in the Koran, which was put together after the death of Muhammed in 632 but for which he left no records. And other new policies are also needed.

Further Downturn in Newspoll

Last Monday’s Newspoll showed a further drop in the Coalition’s polling to 54/55 on a TPP basis and a drop also in Morrison’s personal satisfaction ratio. As argued in previous Commentary, I believe this reflects Morrison’s failure to indicate policies on major issues. This view is also reflected in an editorial today’s Australian, viz

“Mr Morrison does not need to don baseball caps and give us the thumbs up to convince us he is a suburban dad. We get it. He needs to use the authority of the top job to deliver the reforms and arguments this nation needs. As a Coalition Prime Minister there must be more he wants to achieve on tax reform or energy affordability. He must be concerned about cultural issues such as our university sector rejecting a centre for Western civilisation or a Labor opponent refusing to call out Islamist terrorism. In short, Mr Morrison will win government in his own right only if he provides the central missing ingredient of this dismal past decade of politics: leadership” (see OZ Says Morrison Needs to Deliver Basic Reforms),viz

“Mr Morrison does not need to don baseball caps and give us the thumbs up to convince us he is a suburban dad. We get it. He needs to use the authority of the top job to deliver the reforms and arguments this nation needs. As a Coalition Prime Minister there must be more he wants to achieve on tax reform or energy affordability.

He must be concerned about cultural issues such as our university sector rejecting a centre for Western civilisation or a Labor opponent refusing to call out Islamist terrorism. In short, Mr Morrison will win government in his own right only if he provides the central missing ingredient of this dismal past decade of politics: leadership”.

Newspoll & Policy Deficiences; Budget Outlook; Melbourne Killer

Des Moore — Sun, 24 Dec 2017 12:05:42 +0000

Explaining Turnbull’s Failure to Increase Coalition Polling

Following my Commentary of 10 December my computer became unusable for over a week and I missed the opportunity of commenting on the final Newspoll for 2017 on 18 December. Despite inclinations in some media that the Coalition might improve, its TPP remained at 47/53 and, although the “Better PM” indicator lifted Turnbull’s to a poor 41 (from 39), Shorten’s also rose to 34 (from 33). Both leaders’ performances were left at a miserable 32 “Satisfied”. Various events/decisions by the Leaders seem to have cancelled each other out and the swing of 5% against the Liberals in the 16 December Bennelong election can be regarded as “normal” for a by-election . But the deficiencies in Coalition policy stances remained extant and the Coalition needed a much better than normal outcome.

Various policy deficiencies were outlined in The Australian. Judith Sloan drew attention to four –excessive immigration and university enrolments, the continued commitment to the Paris climate accord, and the low interest rate policy pursued by the Reserve Bank.Emeritus Prof Ross Fitzgerald argued in an article that, on the standard that Turnbull himself set his government, “it is still headed for a catastrophic defeat”. Indeed, the Turnbull government’s losing sequence in polling is now “longer in time than that of his predecessor, Tony Abbott” and, while there is no consensus as to who should be the next leader, there is “substantial agreement that they need a better one they have today”. Political editor in The Australian, Simon Benson, noted that “the fundamental issues facing the government haven’t materially changed”. Writing on the same sex marriage issue, John Stone suggested that, while Turnbull portrayed the favourable vote as a triumph for Australia and himself, the resultant amendment to the Marriage Act to allow any two people to qualify may not be as well received in the electorate as it appeared to be in Parliament. Turnbull’s failure to postpone protective legislation for public critics has been regarded as part of his failure as leader.

Mid-Year Budget Report

Leaks to the media prior to Treasurer Scott Morrison’s mid-year Budget report on 18 December suggested a substantial improvement in the budget outlook compared with the May 2017 Budget. And the media has given the Coalition credit for the improvement. However, the new estimates for 2017-18 are for a reduction in the deficit of only $5.8bn, or 0.3% of GDP and only about $1bn of the improvement is due to policy decisions on expenditure and revenue levels of around $450 billion each. The remaining nearly $5bn deficit saving mainly reflects revised estimates of receipts and spending but with no change in existing policies.

	Receipts $bn	% of GDP	Spending $bn	% of GDP	Result $bn	% of GDP
Original Budget 2017-18	433.5	23.8	459.7	25.2	-29.4	-1.6
Mid-Year Update 2017-18	437.1	24.0	457.6	25.2	-23.6	-1.3
Budget 2020-21 (projected)	525.6	25.4	515.4	24.9	+10.2	+0.5

Note: Results includes Net earnings from Future Fund

Looking ahead to 2020-21 (the last two years of which are classified as “projections” not “estimates”), over the three years after 2017-18 Receipts are projected to increase further to 25.4% of GDP and Spending would still be increasing in real terms each year but dropping slightly to 24.9% of GDP by 2020-21. On this basis, a surplus of $10.2 bn or 0.5% of GDP would be achieved in 2020-21. If achieved, that would be the first surplus since 2007-08, which was the last “year” of the Howard government (the Rudd government did not take office until December 2007). But the surplus would mainly be achieved through an increase in taxation receipts, which would mainly reflect bracket creep. Tax receipts would increase from 22.5% of GDP in 2017-18 to 23.8% in 2020-21, the highest since the Howard government in 2007-08. A justification for being re-elected?

In assessing these estimates/projections the following should be noted

A continuation of a Turnbull government would be highly likely to exceed the spending levels projected for 2020-21 and this would wipe out the surplus. There is no indication that the Coalition would sell itself as a “small” government. The projected spending for 2021 of $515.4bn has been reached by lowering spending by only $2.3bn from policy decisions and this would be reversed by promises made in the next election. The election of a Labor government would also be highly likely to increase the relative size of the federal government.
The revenue estimates/projections are based on a forecast increase in real GDP growth of 3.0% in each of the three next financial years, up from 2.5% growth this year. While this is possible if overseas demand increases as a result (in particular) of increases in US GDP growth, it is a higher rate of growth for Australia than in recent years. Note also that a Turnbull government may seek to reduce taxation to at least modify bracket creep, which would also reduce the projected surplus for 2020-21 ( a reduction in taxation of about 2% would wipe out the surplus and would be ineffective politically).
On the basis of its existing “philosophy” (sic), the Turnbull government appears to have very limited scope for announcing election promises which add to spending and/or reduce taxes. One of Australia’s best judges of government policies, Terry McCrann, says that “The key plus in the Budget update is the way it enables the government to craft a credible tax and economic narrative that doesn’t set good policy at war with desperately needed voter-appealing politics” but adds the proviso that the government must “keep a lid on spending” and tax revenues must continue to grow, including through bracket creep (see attached McCrann on Mid-Year Budget).

Terrorism in Melbourne

The mowing down in Melbourne of civilians (and the killing of some) with a car (the second such occurrence here but obviously a copy of the same overseas by terrorists) by a drug-ridden Afghan refugee raises questions about relevant federal and state policies. His apparent “explanation” is that he was concerned at the perceived mistreatment of Muslims around the world and the role of ASIO.

He came to Australia in 2004 and became a citizen in 2007. Turnbull and Dutton described this attack as an “isolated incident” but this dodges the Muslim connection and our immigration policy. The Victorian Acting Police Chief claimed that the Afghan was not expressing any support for terrorist groups “or anything like that” and a committee comprising various police/intelligence officials decided not to charge him with terrorist offences but with attempted murder. Yet at the same time it is revealed that by February a new unit is being established in Victoria to identify persons in three groups viz those who are “fixated” between criminality and mental illness, those who would be radicalised or violent extremists, and those who are lone-actor attackers (see Problems with Fixated Persons).

While this division recognises Muslim extremism, it fails to acknowledge that there are likely to be Muslim extremists in all three groups and that the major threat is from that source. Our immigration policy has been tightened but it is unclear as to the extent to which Muslims are checked. In the US, the so-called chain program allows entry if family connection can be established and a Bangladeshi used that to access the US and then attempted to detonate a suicide-bomb (see US Immigration). Trump has called for this “system” to be abolished. More generally, there remains a need for senior ministers, including the PM, to acknowledge that there are in Australia Muslim groups who support terrorism and which “educate” young Muslims in why terrorist activity against others is justifiable. As Chris Kenny points out “How can the public feel safe if the authorities and politicians won’t even confront the very real enemy of Islamist extremism terrorism. This is the evil whose name they dare not speak — they are in jihad denialism” (see Kenny on Melbourne Attacker).

Christmas Greetings

At this time, we all extend Christmas greetings and best wishes to each other, as do I to you. But don’t forget to also wish for a happy New Year.

Will Coalition’s TPP Hold?

Des Moore — Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:58:35 +0000

Federal Parliament does not sit again until 16 Oct (and then only for one week) and I assume there will be a Newspoll tomorrow. With Turnbull’s inability to decide an energy policy and the National Party Conference rejecting a clean energy target and voting to eliminate subsidies for renewable, the Coalition’s TPP is unlikely to increase. Indeed, with the No votes increasing on same sex marriage (but still above 50%), and No voter former PM Howard highlighting Turnbull’s failure before the vote to (at least) publish proposed protection for those opposing official legislation endorsing SS on an on-going basis , these last two weeks are more likely to have produced a fall in the TPP. That would be “exciting”.

Energy Policy

While I have failed to have a letter published in The Australian drawing attention to, inter alia, the fact that my AGL electricity bill for September is 40 per cent higher than it was a year ago when calculated on a daily basis, expert geologist Geoff Derrick yesterday had a letter which rightly claimed that “the basic claims of climate alarmism are overstated, manipulated and in many cases simply fraudulent.” The editorial in “The Australian” concluded by saying that “to deliver the substance and differentiation needed, he (Turnbull) will have to dramatically change his stance from that of the climate warrior who crossed the floor in 2010 to vote for Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme”. Enough said, one would think!

Today’s Herald Sun publishes an article by Peta Credlin saying that “it is time for the Coalition to end this farce and scrap any plans for a new Clean Energy Target – or whatever they might call it – as well as suspending the RET”. It is likely that she reflects the view of Tony Abbott, who will be addressing the sceptical Global Warming Foundation in London well before our Parliament resumes.

One might say that the longer Turnbull holds back from announcing his energy/climate policy the less will be the Coalition’s polling – although it is also true that the kind of changes reportedly being considered by Turnbull fall well short of what is desirable and needed. A report in Sunday Age claims that the 46 year old Liddell coal-fired generator, named as one that might be assisted by the Turnbull government, even purchased by it, requires $160 mn to be spent on it in order to keep it running until 2022, when it has been scheduled by AGL to close. The real question facing Turnbull is whether he is prepared to admit that he was wrong when acting as a “climate warrior” in 2010.

Relevant are the actions being taken in the US under Trump. The focus in Australia’s media and amongst many politicians (most notably in South Australia, which is currently advertising for a senior employee under the heading “Director, Climate Change” ) is that Australia is obliged to fulfil the 26-28% emissions reduction by 2030 announced in Paris. In fact there is no such obligation. Although doubtless regarded as politically too difficult, we could follow Trump and withdraw or say we will only stay in if changes are made (which Trump seems to have hinted as a possible “deal).

Although Trump’s extravagant public statements via Twitter on all manner of issues are subjected to much criticism in the US too, apart from announcing a withdrawal from Paris he has made important regulatory changes related to climate policy, including the appointment of a sceptic as head of the Environment Authority and NASA (the Aeronautical agency). Trump has also attracted support from some sceptical academics, such as Dr Tim Ball who in a recent article argues that “Whether you like Trump or not, his campaign and election represent a turning point in the human condition. It is reasonable to argue that the claim that humans were causing global warming in contradiction to the increasingly cooler weather people were experiencing, triggered a reaction. The people said you are lying to us about what is happening because you think we are too stupid to understand. We are rejecting you as academic and scientific elitist scoundrels of the left and right that you represent and are taking more control of our own destiny”.

Interestingly, Ball includes a graph showing estimates of the changes in temperatures and how the world cooled from the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period to the cold of the Little Ice Age, and the subsequent partial “recovery” from mid 1700 (see below). Note the fall in the period just before 2000 when emissions of CO2 were increasing.

London Bomb

Although there is so far no indication that the man arrested was a Muslim, IS has claimed responsibility and the police have indicated that there are likely to have been others involved. The increase in the warning level to “Critical” (the highest in the UK) also points in this direction. Hopefully, it will support the UK government’s attempts in the Brexit negotiations to increase its ability to restrict migrants from the EU, including of course the many allowed into the EU from Middle East and African countries. Latest UK migrant figures suggest the sharp drop (in net terms) may reflect a belief that migrants from the EU (many of which not have not first obtained jobs) will find it harder after Brexit. Australian immigration policy also needs to include an increase in assessments and a reduction in the high rate of admissions.

Meantime, today’s Herald Sun reports that in Indonesia there has been an increase in so-called “radicalization” and that some 500,000 support establishing a caliphate in the country, with over 11.5 mn “prone” to radicalization (total population is more than 210 mn). The report says that the expulsion of the Robingya from Myanmar (previously Burma) is influencing Indonesian Muslims to adopt a more aggressive attitude and will likely result in more support from Muslims for those trying to establish a caliphate in the Southern Philippines.

How Long Can Turnbull Last?

Des Moore — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 03:46:45 +0000

Questionable Reactions to Newspoll

I headed my Commentary on Sunday “Are Our Politicians in the Real World? and suggested that some of the behaviour and events in Canberra and one or two other states in the last couple of weeks indicated that our political body is, like Alice in Wonderland, acting outside the real world. I added that “It would be surprising if tomorrow’s Newspoll does not show a further decline in the Coalition’s rating, which would again emphasise the need to replace Turnbull if the Coalition wants an election chance”.

That further decline has now happened, with the Coalition’s TPP down to 46/54 from 47/53 (a potential loss of 20 seats) and Turnbull’s Net Satisfaction Rate falling from minus 12 to minus 20 (the same as Shorten’s). Turnbull’s only “saving grace” was that he sustained a lead as preferred PM, albeit at a slightly reduced 10 points (43/33). According to Weekend Australian’s editorial, “this has been a terrible week for Malcolm Turnbull’s government. Tossed around like a tinny in an ocean storm, it has been incapable of steering its own course”. Political editor, Crowe, judged that “Turnbull is now in a political trough that is deeper and longer than anything predecessors such as John Howard experienced” (see Crowe on Newspoll 21 Aug).

Relevant in interpreting developments is Chris Kenny’s article in Weekend Australian suggesting that there is a “widening chasm between journalists and the mainstream, the audiences they are supposed to serve” and that “this great divide has played out dramatically of late” ie writings by most journos reflect their view of the world and/or what they think it should be like, rather than what it really is. But any increased influence by the well-known leftist media also raises the question as to why leading politicians are currently unable (or unwilling?) to play an effective leadership role. Yet Turnbull’s enunciations are so close to those coming from the ABC/SBS and suggest he is a leader who will not reflect what the “real world” polling calls for (interestingly, yesterdays news on ABC’s breakfast program did not even mention the Newspoll result).

For example, the reported criticisms on yesterday’s ABC news of the wearing of the burka in Parliament by One Nation Leader were in similar vein to Turnbull’s. Both failed to link the wearing of the burka with the serious problem that exists with what is called “extremist Islam” but which extends beyond the extremist version. They also failed to acknowledge that the wearing of the burka in public is not permitted in some countries, particularly those with a higher proportion of Muslims. My Commentary predicted that the real world was likely to lift Hanson’s polling – which it did.

But what are the implications of Newspoll for Turnbull’s leadership of the Coalition?

The surprising thing is that there has so far been no suggestion that he should be replaced before Parliament resumes in two weeks time.

Even Andrew Bolt dodged the issue by suggesting yesterday that the Turnbull government’s “grip on power is now so shaky it may be too dangerous to sack him. Sack the Prime Minister and the Liberals risk losing power within months” (see Nobody to Replace Turnbull?). So, are we to continue with a government that is “shaky” (or worse)?Bolt did not explain how a government led by Turnbull would prevent a further reduction in policy credibility over the next 18 months before the election, let alone a probable further reduction in polling as it tried to campaign for re-election (perhaps the High Court will decide that so many MPs are “illegal” under Section 44 that Turnbull has no alternative but to then call an early election!).
No editorials in today’s main newspapers even discuss the question of survival or the implications for achieving reforms in policies. Will we continue to have a government “tossed around like a tinny in an ocean storm” and incapable of steering its own course”?
Notwithstanding his reference yesterday to Turnbull being in a worse political trough than Howard, political correspondent Crowe claims today that an analysis of surveys by Newspoll shows that Turnbull has sustained his position as preferred PM and that the government has tended to hold its support in regular Newspoll surveys. But he makes no reference to what counts in an election viz the TPP (see Crowe on Turnbull 22 Aug).
In today’s AFR journalist Aaron Patrick surveys the experience of the 8 MPs who played a lead role in voting Abbott out of his PM role and notes (cautiously) that “Given Turnbull narrowly avoided defeat at last year, a defeat at the next election might prompt some political historians to argue that the Group of Eight led the Liberal Party into a terrible mistake”. However he quotes Peter Hendy (one of the eight) as saying that he is after a seat in the Senate, is “happy with the decision I made” and that “by the time we get to the election they will have a very, very high chance of winning.” (see Patrick on Turnbull 22 Aug).

Perhaps the only sensible article today is Judith Sloan’s headed “Minister should be red-faced over green schemes” (see Sloan on Energy Policy).She points out that “ The reality is that the energy market is heading for complete disaster notwithstanding all the desperate tinkering by this government” and that “ the bottom line is that countries with higher penetrations of renewable energy have higher electricity prices. It is a perfect fit. And while we may worry about the impact on households, the more important consideration is the future of businesses and the jobs they provide. It all comes down to those dastardly “green schemes”.

But would the continuation of a government, led by someone who commissioned a report on how to further reduce CO2 emissions and increase usage of renewable, be likely to effect changes which would substantially reduce vote-losing electricity prices and allow a recovery in investment in coal-fired generators?

The Message from Barcelona & N Korea

Available here is an article by John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad”. He provides an important analysis of the potential risks facing the US (and the western world generally) from recent events in N Korea and the increase in terrorist activity in (among others) Barcelona. The following extract from Bolton’s article suggests Australia and others are behind the real world in addressing potential (and actual) threats.

“North Korea is manifestly more than a Northeast Asia problem. Kim Jong Un would unhesitatingly sell any technology it possessed, including nuclear, to anyone with hard currency. Iran is one such potential customer. Terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, befriended by wealthy governments or individuals, could also be buyers. Accordingly, if the regime-change options fail, then a preemptive military strike to eliminate the North Korean and Iranian programs may well be the only way to avoid decades of nuclear blackmail by Pyongyang, Tehran and inevitably others, including the terrorist groups who might acquire weapons of mass destruction. Israel has twice before reached this conclusion, in 1981 against Iraq and in 2007 against Syria. It was not wrong to do so”.