Institute for Private Enterprise » Paris

Commonwealth Budget 2019/20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Solve the Dangerous Warming Threat

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

How to Solve The Dangerous Warming Threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NZ Killings

Des Moore — Sun, 17 Mar 2019 05:20:08 +0000

Some Thoughts About the NZ Killings

As expected, there has been universal condemnation of the killing of 49 Muslims in two NZ mosques by an Australian using automatic weapons. That person is Breton Tarrant, who seems to have planned the killings carefully, including by spending three months in Christchurch and maintaining contacts with 3-4 colleagues. The incident has naturally raised questions about the implications for police/defence policies and whether existing policies are adequate.

Peter Jennings, Head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (way back I was on ASPI’s Board), identifies some problems:

Such an attack could just as easily have been made on Muslims in Australia (only 1.1% of New Zealand is populated by Muslims) and it could have been an even larger attack, as occurred at the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 when 130 were killed, on that occasion by ISIL suiciders (see 2015 Paris Attacks Killed 130);
Violence by “fascist white supremacists” has occurred before and is an ongoing matter of concern to police et al;
There is concern that social media will publicise the activity by Tarrant, who live-streamed it himself and issued a 73 page manifesto. Such wide coverage will attract the attention of “every teen with a grudge … and every lunatic with a manifesto” and “looking to be the next Anders Breivik, the Norwegian ‘far-right’ terrorist who killed 77 people in a lone attack in 2011”;
The NZ killing by an anti-Muslim will be used by Islamic groups “as a call to take the fight to ‘the far enemy’… of non-Muslim Westerners” (for further detail see NZ Killings of Muslims Have Possible Further Occurrences).

The excellent coverage of the NZ incident in The Australian includes references to why Tarrant decided to do the killings. The basic aim given in his 73-page manifesto is to stop the “mass immigration of “non-Europeans to “our lands”, and “WHITE GENOCIDE”. Revenge is his motive for the attack, the author claims”. The problem started with the Ottomans (see NZ Killer’s Manifesto Postulates Events “Reguiring” Revenge).

Also, Tarrant’s live stream is “set to a seemingly incongruous soundtrack, a jaunty European folk song. Beneath the melody, there is a sinister message. The song was written to celebrate Serbia’s war against Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the Balkans”. And the music “shifts to the flute and snare of the British Grenadiers, the marching tune used by the British redcoats against America’s revolutionaries”… We hear the opening lyric of The Prodigy song, Hellfire: “I am the god of hellfire, and I bring you, fire.’’ (see NZ Killer Seeks Revenge For The Past).

My conclusion is that, regrettable as they are, incidents such as the NZ one do occur nowadays looking at it from the perspective of Western countries. Terrorists do come from both the “white male” side and the Muslim side and our policies need to be as tight as possible to limit the incidents from either side ( in NZ’s case it appears that checking of airline luggage was not being properly carried out, controls over the gun he used were lax, and over the considerable time that Tarrant made contacts with his colleagues, NZ security should have been able to detect what was going on). My guess is that more deficiencies will emerge as the killings are reviewed.

Such security arrangements also need to have regard to the growing resentment from “white males”, particularly in European countries, to the increasing number of Muslims in those countries who do not integrate with other sections of the population. There are almost certainly many “white males” who have similar views about Muslim immigrants to those of Tarrant, albeit not to effecting killings.

It is sometimes said that most Muslims want to live peacefully. But polls and experience suggest differently and research by Australian expert theologian Mark Durie indicates the religion stimulates jihadist activity and requires a much lower role for women. Durie’s latest book, The Qur’an and Its Biblical Connections, argues that, contrary to Muslim assertions, we don’t all believe in the same god and that the Koran actually contains revelations which threaten us today. As Durie puts it, “punishment of unbelievers was to be brought about in this life by the hands of believers. Slay them, says the Koran”.

Should Coalition Change Any Policies?

Des Moore — Sun, 10 Mar 2019 21:00:56 +0000

The latest Newspoll shows that, after three successive results on 47/53 TPPs, the Coalition has now fallen to 46/54. Even though Morrison’s personal approval ratings improved a single point to 43 per cent so too did Shorten’s and, while Morrison’s disapproval numbers fell from 48 per cent to 45 per cent, Shorten’s also fell two points. These ratings gaps have not altered to any significant extent over the last fortnight and, although they still favour Morrison, there is no real sign that the Coalition can close the overall gap on TPPs by the May election (see Coalition’s Newspoll Down To 46/54).

What Now?

“The Australian’s National Affairs editor argues that “Scott Morrison is approaching the point of no return. He either sticks with the current political strategy in the hope it will eventually start to bite, or he changes course before it’s too late. Both options are loaded with risk. The polls suggest that whatever the Coalition is doing, it is not working. But to restart the government agenda now would be ridiculous. There is no other narrative for Morrison. The economy and national security are what Coalition governments do. Cooler heads within government will be advising colleagues that the real driver of the polling numbers are the constant, and one would have to assume tactical, interventions. (see Morrison Near Point of No Return)

My belief is that the Coalition should in fact “change courses” asap. Even if it is too late now to win an election, it should aim to provide a better base from which to counter Labor in office. Such changes should include

A statement that policies operated during Turnbull’s reign will hitherto be revised to better reflect the Liberal Party’s small government and competition market beliefs. That should be accompanied by indicating that moves will be made to expel Turnbull from leadership of the Liberal party (see Turnbull).
Morrison should offer to subject himself to another election contest and indicate that he would support the appointment of Abbott if he won such a contest.
An indication that policy changes include changes in climate change policy involving a withdrawal from the Paris agreement, a major reduction in the emissions reductions target, a major lowering of the renewable target, the elimination of related subsidies, no increase in refugees from the already high level, a substantive reduction in immigration from the present rate, a closing of any gaps that allow asylum seekers to obtain unwarranted residence, and a reduction in government expenditure over the next three years to the level reached in the last year of the Howard government (to 23.% of GDP from the present rate of about 24.5%) to be set out in the April budget, with a reduction in the income levels at which social welfare is provided.

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

Turnbull Can No Longer Be Accepted As a Liberal

Des Moore — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 03:38:03 +0000

Morrison Could Now Distance Himself From Turnbull

In today’s Herald Sun, Andrew Bolt points out that on Tuesday Malcolm Turnbull “gave a ludicrously generous endorsement to Liberal turncoat Julia Banks, the MP now running as an independent against Liberal Health Minister Greg Hunt” and rightly describes this and other actions by Turnbull as “treachery” which however many journalists have failed to so characterize (see Turnbull’s Party Betrayal Must Be Called Out).

Bolt argues that “Turnbull has now done all that’s needed for the Liberals to expel him as a saboteur. The constitution of the party’s NSW branch, to which Turnbull belongs, states: ‘State Executive may expel a member where the member has actively assisted a candidate other than a candidate endorsed or approved by the organisation for election to office.’”

Bolt also argues that “Turnbull is involved in the spate of so-called ‘independents’ and ‘moderates’ now standing against his Liberal foes and all pushing his signature cause of global warming”;
Turnbull shows “other clear signs of vengeance against the Liberals who failed to see how utterly brilliant, loved and successful he really was”;
Turnbull “publicly attacked” Morrison’s proposal to move Australia’s Israel’s embassy to Jerusalem;
He lobbied Liberals to refer Peter Dutton’s to the High Court to determine his eligibility as an MP;
Followed a new “Vote Tony Out” Instagram campaign against Tony Abbott re-election in Warringah.

Bond concludes that Turnbull “just wants the Liberals to lose” and yet “Morrison is too scared to take on Turnbull publicly”.

Bolt is far from being the only commentator who is critical of Turnbull’s behavior from the viewpoint of the Liberal Party. An article in The Australian on 6 Feb, jointly authored by Greg Brown and National Affairs Editor Simon Benson, reports that “Liberal Party federal president Nick Greiner criticized Mr Turnbull for suggesting in an interview that Ms Banks was an ‘outstanding parliamentarian’. Mr Greiner, a former NSW premier who was the former prime minister’s pick for party president, said Mr Turnbull should “follow his own advice” about the behaviour of former prime ministers after they leave politics” (see Greiner Criticizes Turnbull).

One day in the near future Liberal President Greiner may be asked to support a motion to expel Turnbull.

Janet Albrechtsen is another liberal commentator who has been extremely critical of Turnbull’s behavior. In an important article in The Australian on 6 Feb she correctly claimed that “last week, Malcolm Turnbull was further marked down in senior government circles as the culprit who has one final act in Australian politics: to bring down the Morrison government and destroy those who tossed him out for being a poor prime minister last year, using his totemic issue of demanding further action on climate change”( see Albrechtsen Exposes Turnbull).

Albrechtsen also points out that “Turnbull’s political history points to a man who burns people who thwart his ambition. Following the 2007 election, when Brendan Nelson beat Turnbull for the leadership, Turnbull wasted no time in tearing Nelson down”. Nelson’s chief of staff, Peter Hendy, told a Fairfax journalist that “Turnbull told me that my job was to get Brendan to resign in the next few weeks because Brendan was hopeless and he would damage the Liberal brand so much that by the time he, Turnbull, took over, the next election would no longer be winnable. Turnbull said much the same to Nelson”.

Important in the present context, Albrechtsen claims that “when Turnbull lost the prime ministership to Scott Morrison last year, he did everything he could to destroy the Morrison government. Turnbull refused to help Liberal candidate Dave Sharma during the Wentworth by-election. Those close to Turnbull pleaded with him to write a letter supporting Sharma. He refused”. She also suggests that the Turnbull may have a hand in the rise of a batch of fake independents, assisted by GetUp, running against his longstanding nemesis Tony Abbott, Greg Hunt too for voting against Turnbull in the leadership coup, and even the member for Mackellar, Jason Falinski. The so-called independents have this in common with Turnbull — a fixation on more action on climate change. She also recalls that in October 2009 Turnbull said “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action of climate change as I am.” And Abbott’s response: “OK then, don’t.”

As to Banks herself, the following picture accompanying Albrechtsen’s digitalized article itself tells its own story.

Malcolm Turnbull visits the then newly elected member for Chisholm Julia Banks in Oakleigh in 2016. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

Her false claim to have “unfinished business” on climate change action is reflected in what she told the ABC’s Rafael Epstein, viz that ‘we should meet or exceed the Paris targets’. “That was news to Jane Hume, a Victorian Liberal MP who once supported Banks but said she had never heard Banks raise such matters on climate change in the party room. A new-found conviction then? Maybe one assisted by her good friend, the former PM, and his son”.

There is much more that could be said about Turnbull’s character and ruthlessness. John Stone has had a number of articles published pointing out that, for a variety of reasons, he was totally unsuited to be head of the Liberal party. Most of these were re-published in my Commentary now on my web.

The most important policy implication now is that the revelations cited above provide an opportunity for the Morrison government not to say publicly that Turnbull is no longer accepted as a Liberal but to say that some of the policies adopted by Turnbull have been reviewed and are being improved. Morrison should not be “scared” to take on Turnbull, as Bolt suggests he is. The Coalition should say that they now judge themselves more likely to be accepted by the electorate than present polling suggests by making an updating in some policy areas.

This requires a change in what is the most important “political” policy for the election, viz climate change. In particular, the policy being developed by Energy Minister Taylor should include a departure from the Paris Accord by eliminating or at least reducing Australia’s targets for reducing carbon emissions and also reducing the renewable target. Morrison should also strongly reaffirm the other main policy, viz that on border controls and on immigration policy generally including a major reduction. This appears to be mainly (but not entirely) on track (see Morrison Will Vote Against Bill On Medical Treatment).

With the resumption of Parliament next week these changes in policy, and their explanations, should be settled before then.

Can Electricity Prices be Reduced?

Des Moore — Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:14:43 +0000

Will Electricity Prices Be Allowed by Governments to Fall?

The improvement in the Coalition’s Newspoll on 29 January (still down at 47/53 TPP) has almost been forgotten and questions continue as to whether Morrison is able to address the “two big things” (quit Paris accord and slash immigration) needed to give the Coalition a chance. The need for quitting the Paris accord has been enhanced by what has happened under heat waves in Victoria, South Australia and now NSW.

Since my 29/1 Commentary the possibility of the Coalition establishinga policy which would, as promised, allow lower electricity prices to happen and be sustained continues to be highly unlikely– except of course if government controls are able to be imposed legally and producers/retailers are compensated for a proportion of the existing higher costs which would otherwise be met by consumers of electricity, but with taxpayers then having to pay the costs. As indicated in the this article (Forward Electricity Prices Increase), at present futures markets are operating on the basis that the increasing reliance on renewables under announced policies will mean that there will be periods when major shortages of supply occur given that states have policies which will rely on up to 50 per cent of power coming from renewable and prices will have to increase to choke off a proportion of demand (the discussion in the article is confused because the author and the AFR itself supports existing policy).

This is basically what happened during last week’s heat wave and little wind power and which led to a sudden major increase in costs. It is reported that Victorian and South Australian consumers of electricity had to pay additional costs of about $1bn for just two days last week, which indicates the frailty of existing policies operated by those two states (see Power Costs Increase by $1bn in Two Days) and which other states also operate. Indeed, NSW has today experienced blackouts which appear less than in Melbourne but which include outages (and additional costs) in hospitals (see Blackouts in NSW Too).

Note that Federal Resources Minister Canavan said that this occurrence “justifies investment in reliable sources of power, such as coal-fired power”. But he fails to recognise that the private sector will not make any such investments under the existing climate change policy which aims to reduce usage of coal. Note also that the climate “expert” employed by The Australian, Graham Lloyd, comments that “Renewable energy might be the cheapest option to build but it makes sense only if there is power available when it is needed”(see Graham Lloyd on Renewable). But he doesn’t canvass a reduction in usage of renewable or a basic problem with policies.

The “solution” of course is to withdraw from the Paris accord which Turnbull signed on our behalf (sic) and, instead, adopt a climate change policy which preferably eliminates any target for using renewable or reducing carbon emissions but at least reduces such targets to a major extent. Properly handled, that would provide a major weapon with which to fight the election given that Labor has adopted an even larger bunch of targets to use renewable and to reduce carbon emissions. But Morrison has first to indicate that his government is now not in agreement with CC policies adopted under Turnbull.

Newspoll Lift Helpful But Coalition Has a Long Way to Go

Des Moore — Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:24:15 +0000

Helpful Lift in Coalition Newspoll But Still Well Behind

Today’s first Newspoll for 2019 shows a helpful improvement for the Coalition in its TPP gap from 45/55 in early December to 47/53 but Morrison’s “Satisfactory” rate as PM went down from 42 to 40 and his “Dissatisfaction” rate went up from 45 to 47. By contrast, the “Satisfactory” and “Dissatisfaction” rates for Shorten each improved by a point and left him only 3 rates behind Morrison. In the “Better PM” rate Morrison also dropped a point while Shorten’s rate was unchanged, albeit at 7 points behind Morrison. This Newspoll was taken during the period when three ministers announced they would not stand at the next election (see Newspoll TPP Loss Reduced to 53/47).

One might say that the improvement in the Coalition’s TPP is not cancelled out by the deterioration in satisfaction and better PM rates. But the improved TPP has also to be assessed by noting that it is still suggests a 3.4 per cent swing against the government since the July 2016 double dissolution election won by Turnbull by one vote. Remember also that the Turnbull government itself experienced a swing against it then of over 3 per cent ie the Coalition has a lot of ground to make up.

The NSW State election on 23 March (for all seats in the lower house) will provide the next electoral test for the Coalition, although there will also be more Newspolls before then.

In my Commentary on 27 January I argued that Morrison needed to get cracking on enunciating policies asap and drew particular attention to the problems arising from existing energy and climate change policies, including of course the large blackouts in Victoria. Commentary concluded that “the cost of producing more power, and reducing electricity prices, would also be reduced if the existing policy of reducing emissions from coal usage was either dropped or substantially reduced and the non-binding agreement in Paris was dropped or reduced”. I also argued that increased usage of renewable is not the way to reduce electricity prices.

Note too that, according to Simon Benson at News, Morrison believes that the Coalition’s attack on Labor’s negative gearing and dividend imputation policies “represent a significant vulnerability in Labor’s economic argument”. But the (correct) attack on such policies is likely to have only a limited effect on polling.

So far there is no sign of any movement on the most important policies and Morrison’s announcement today of tax concessions for small businesses, apparently at a cost of $750mn , is only touching the edges of policy (see Morrison Announces Tax Concessions for Small Businesses). Equally, to meet his prediction that there will be an increase in jobs of 1.25 mn over the next five years (similar to Abbott’s successful prediction), appropriate policies and circumstance will need to be in place.

In today’s Herald Sun et al, Terry McCrann says “Sorry Scott and Josh, but there ain’t anything you can do to stop it. Labor is going to win the federal election. The two of you, and especially Scott, won’t do the two big things that are so critical to Australia’s future and, properly argued “axe-the-tax style”, could at least make a fight of it. That’s to slash immigration and walk away from the Fake Paris Climate Accord” ( see McCrann: Labor will Shutdown Lights/Economy)

Morrison needs to address in a substantive way the “two big things” mentioned by McCrann.

Morrison Falls Short of Coherent Leadership; Victorian Coalition Likewise.

Des Moore — Sun, 27 Jan 2019 05:16:28 +0000

Morrison’s Behaviour Raises Questions About His Leadership

My previous Commentary have argued that, as a Coalition leader facing an election, Scott Morrison needs to get cracking on enunciating policies asap in the New Year. But although active since early January, he seems to have focussed on matters which are mostly “organisational” and would have limited appeal to the electorate in general. Indeed, his poor handling of some of these matters might even have attracted negative comment or a sort of “well what was that all about”.

Now we have a situation in which three of his ministers have said they will not stand again but, in what seems bad strategy for the Coalition, will remain as ministers right up to the election and yet whatever they pronounce will have no application as future policy in itself. Morrison’s response is that such “refreshing” is normal but it gives the appearance of rats leaving a sinking ship (see Morrison Loses Three Ministers). Moreover, while the “pick” by Morrison of former President of the Labor party, Warren Mundine, for the seat of Gilmore should help retain that closely fought seat, Morrison seems to have mishandled the arrangements for the de-selection of a popular local candidate and he felt forced to publicly attack that candidate. This has apparently upset not only the candidate but other local Liberal members, some of whom resigned. It will not have helped the next Newspoll by the Coalition.

Today’s article in the Herald Sun by Peta Credlin points out that, while Mundine “delivered a devasting indictment of the party that had been his DNA for decades”, the “immediate attention of the media focussed on the cack-handed way the former Liberal candidate was replaced and the unhappiness of local branch members. Instead of Mundine’s move signifying just how much the coming election matters, its been treated as further evidence of Liberal chaos” (see Re: Credlin on Mundine Highlighting Added). With what is almost despair Credlin adds “As you know, I’ve been a critic of the current government for not being sufficiently different from Labor, whether that’s been rolling PMs or pandering to the green lobby by destroying Australia’s energy advantage. But for all the government’s mistakes, Mundine’s move highlights the gulf that still remains between the two big parties. Labor’s instinct is always for more spending, more regulating and more taxing, especially on anyone who works hard to get ahead”.

Importantly, neither Morrison nor his Energy Minister (Taylor) seem to have been able to indicate why they have not made any substantive change in energy policy and/or how they are going to effect the promised reduction in electricity prices. Alinta, one of the our large retailers, has indicated that no reductions are likely in the next 18 months. If correct that would follow the about doubling of wholesale prices in Victoria over the last six years (which covered the closing of Haxelwood) and similar increases in other states.

Note that Alinta was bought by a Chinese group in 2017 “from private equity for $4bn as part of a wave of foreign investments targeting growth opportunities in Australia’s power and utility sectors following a jump in gas and electricity prices over the past few years” ie it would seem that the Chinese saw that the increased prices offered high returns and no effective action was subsequently taken by the ACCC to try to ensure competition, rather the so-called regulatory solution. (see Power Prices To Rise further). The implication is that Atlinta feels that any policy changes by either the Victorian or Federal governments will be accompanied by price increases.

Indications remain (but without detail) that, to ensure (sic) reliability and to control prices, the Morrison government will likely announce a highly regulated energy policy, possibly in the budget. Such a de facto nationalisation would naturally suit Labor, which has been attributing part of current problems to privatisations undertaken by former Premier Jeff Kennett. But instead of pointing out the gross inefficiency of the SECV when he came to office, the latter’s main contribution to existing political difficulties facing the Coalition seems to be to push some of the oldies in the Liberal Party to resign, including existing “conservatives” such as Kevin Anderson and Tony Abbott. Yet Morrison shows no sign of even bringing them back as ministers, even though that should at least improve the image from the existing left of centre!

The concern which the extreme left feels about a return of Abbott to the Coalition ministry is indicated by the front page article published by today’s Age. It is headed “An Olympian’s Task: to kick out Abbott” and written by two journos, Peter FitzSimons & Bevan Shields, whose writings would raise a question about The Age’s claim of being “always independent”. According to these two, “World champion athlete-turned-barrister Zali Steggall has called time on Tony Abbott’s “destructive and divisive” 25-year career in federal politics, launching a major bid to seize the former prime minister’s blue-ribbon Sydney seat of Warringah… the four-time Winter Olympian said Mr Abbott was an “aggressive” national figure who had lost touch with the affluent electorate and deserved to be thrown out of Parliament for his role in the demise of Malcolm Turnbull, and views on the environment… Tony Abbott, who has been a handbrake on Australian progress on many fronts but particularly effective action on climate change”. (Note that my first message conveying this article was rejected because “the content was rejected due to suspected spam”. When I sent the same message again the suspected spam had disappeared!).

The Coalition’s (Federal & Victorian) failure to enunciate a coherent energy policy was important in the abysmal handling of the policy during the heat wave and may well constitute another challenge or two in the period ahead if (as is forecast) further high temperatures occur. In considering the various policy “explanations” it is pertinent to assess what the main policy makers said that during the heat wave yesterday (see The Incredible Story of Vic Energy Policy under “Extreme” Eventsextracted from reports/comments in yesterday’s Australian):

Federal energy minister Angus Taylor said the government was closely monitoring the energy situation in Victoria and thanks AEMO for the job it has done managing a difficult situation in collaboration with the wider energy industry. “The conditions experienced over the last two weeks across the national electricity market reinforce the need for investment in reliable 24/7 generation and the retailer reliability obligation.“That is why the government is backing in new reliable generation investment through its Underwriting New Generation Investments program which has had strong responses to its registration of interest process that closed on 23 January.“The government will carefully consider all proposals and will have more to say once we have considered all the submissions and feedback received during this process.”
Labor leader Bill Shorten said he was very concerned about the load shedding, suggesting the Morrison government was partly to blame.“Ever since the federal government said they could lower power prices and took responsibility for the power debate, it’s now partly on the federal government’s head this challenge of blackouts,” Mr Shorten said.“They’re the ones who said that renewables were a waste of time – well they’ve been in charge now for the best part of six years.
“I do expect the federal government, having said they could lower prices, to do more for the reliability of the system rather than just blame the states but it is most serious and let’s just keep our fingers crossed.” Mr Shorten said the last six years of energy policy had been a disgrace.“While this government has been debating the scientists and the community about renewable energy there has been a virtual freeze on investment in power generation and now sadly when we need our power the chickens have come home to roost,” he said. “While you have a government that can’t deliver a coherent national power policy, there will not be investment in new generation and where you don’t have investment in new generation, sooner or later the old generation will fall over and then we face these sorts of crises.“To me it highlights everything that’s wrong with the LNP and the Liberal government in Canberra in 2019 – they spend so much time arguing about the politics, and now we’ve wasted 2000 days and we’re no better off, indeed we’re worse off, than we were six years ago.”
Victorian Energy Minister, Ms D’Ambrosio said voters had spoken loudly and clearly on the Coalition’s credibility on energy policy at the November election.“They had no energy policy. The only energy policy they took to the last state election was to build a new coal-fired power station which – even if you started building it today – would take eight years to come”. “No-one is prepared to finance it, and we can see that the problems we’ve got now is that we’ve got a 20th Century system for a 21st Century climate, and the fact is our thermal generators are ageing, they are becoming less and less reliable.“That has been palpably evident in the last couple days.” “More energy supply is available to us in Victoria this summer than it was this time last year. That’s because of our strong emphasis on renewable energy: the quickest form of energy to be built, the cheapest and, of course, if we have a look at today, the most reliable.“Wind power came through today. Wind power produced sufficient power generation – as was anticipated.“Our batteries – our large batteries – were available last night when we needed them the most.” AEMO data showed the batteries generating just 25 megawatts of a Victorian total of 8,622 megawatts at 7pm last night.
Wind is currently generating 8.1 per cent of Victoria’s energy.
Victorian opposition leader Michael O’Brien said the load shedding today in Victoria has shown the failure of the Andrews government’s energy policies.“Something is seriously wrong when the power goes out in Victoria because we don’t have enough supply,” the Liberal leader said.“On a day of extreme temperatures, there are serious health and safety concerns with deliberately cutting off supply.“When Labor policy led to the closure of Hazelwood Power Station, the Liberals and Nationals warned that Victoria was left exposed.“We are not a Third World country. We deserve a safe and reliable power grid.
“Daniel Andrews loves to boast he’s good at ‘getting things done’. Keeping the power on would be a good start.”
Victorian opposition acting energy spokesman David Southwick said it defied belief that in a first-world country like Australia, Victoria has a state government that can’t guarantee enough electricity for people to go about their daily lives.“Melbourne is currently hosting thousands of international tourists for the Australian Open who must be wondering why the state government is asking its citizens to refrain from using common household appliances to prevent large scale blackouts,” Mr Southwick said. “Most Victorians agree that renewable energy is the future but we need to make it a sensible transition that doesn’t threaten power supplies and cost Victorians a fortune.“Daniel Andrews owes all Victorians an explanation as to why he can’t keep the lights on.”

Conclusions

Readers of this Commentary will recognise the ineptness of these statements of policy makers, both Liberal and Labor. Of course, Australia can increase the usage of renewable but the limited wind yesterday showed that they produced only 8 per cent of power in Victoria. This low contribution occurs quite frequently (similar low contributions occur in other states). If the reliance on renewable is increased so too will there be a need for considerable additional investments in back-up power sources, such as gas and diesel. This futher addition to the cost of producing power requires either additional subsidies by taxpayers (already large) or further increases in prices (already doubled in the last six years). A reduction in the unnecessary government restrictions on investment in gas would also help as it has enormously in the US.

The cost of producing more power, and reducing electricity prices, would also be reduced if the existing policy of reducing emissions from coal usage was either dropped or substantially reduced and the non-binding agreement in Paris was dropped or reduced.

A belated Happy Australia day

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).