Institute for Private Enterprise » Tony Abbott

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.

RBA Publishes Surprise Pre-election Analysis Of CC

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

Is RBA Preparing for a Labor Government

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

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

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

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

Debelle’s Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coalition Must Take Now Risks with Policies & leaders

Des Moore — Tue, 12 Mar 2019 07:32:43 +0000

Time to Take Risks

In yesterday’s Commentary I argued that, given the latest Newspoll (and for policy reasons too), the Coalition should “change courses” asap. I also sent a letter to OZ (unpublished) advocating the cancellation of Turnbull’s membership of the Liberal Party. My advocacies are based on my perspective that, although risky, the Coalition needs to take risks now if it is to have any chance of winning the election and that an improved set of policies would in any event provide a better starting point in Opposition to a Labor government.

It was encouraging to receive a number of responses in basic agreement with this approach. And in his article yesterday’s Herald Sun (see Bolt on Abbott as Possible Leader), and again in his presentation last night on Sky News, Andrew Bolt rejected the idea of a new leader who is “a near-unknown that no one hates” because “such risk-aversion rarely ends well”. Instead, he suggests that Abbott would be best and that “helping him will mean that the Liberals after the election will again be overwhelmingly conservative, given how many of the Left are resigning or likely to lose”.

Of course, in principle nobody wants yet another change in leadership. But while Morrison has tried hard, the polling and such limited policy changes as he has offered, are clearly insufficient to swing voters. This is particularly the case with the policy that will be most important in the period prior to the election – energy. Yet Morrison has just rejected the idea of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and has ignored the adverse economic effects from the retention of the Coalition’s target to reduce emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030. Except for possible initial “voluntary” falls, the promised lower electricity prices would only occur if dictated by Federal Energy Minister Taylor.

However, in today’s Herald Sun, Terry McCrann points out, first, that while “the government’s proposed 26-28 per cent cuts are anything but timid, (they) are among the biggest cuts proposed by any country anywhere in the world”. And, second, that Labor’s proposed cuts in emissions of 45 per cent are equivalent to 55 per cent in per capita terms, which would be “entirely and exactly pointless. Those cuts can’t and won’t move the ‘Earth’s temperature’ even by one-ten-thousandth of a degree” (see Labor’s 45% Emissions Cuts Equal 55% per Cap: McCrann).

This analysis could provide a basis for a leader of the Coalition to at least moderate its emissions target and tell voters that Labor’s energy policy would cause much greater economic damage than the Coalition’s. Abbott as a leader would be well placed to convey that to voters if the Liberal’s were prepared to take that risk.

Monetary Policy

These days not many observers of the politico/eco scene take a close interest in monetary policy and many look to central banks to just keep them as low as possible without considering possible adverse economic effects. But it is important to recognise that “low” interest rates may have such adverse effects, including over a period of time. On 11 March I had a letter published in the AFR pointing out that the household saving ratio fell from 10% in 2008-09 to just over 5% today and this has been reflected in an increase in household debt and may account for “an increased tendency to reduce spending rates on consumption and housing. One possible explanation is that monetary policy allowed interest rates at relatively low levels for too long, resulting in higher borrowings and excessive debt levels” (see letter as published below).

In short, the recent slow-down in economic growth may be partly reflecting a pause in spending as household debt reaches levels which consumers and small businesses judge to be too high in present “risky” political conditions. Almost coincidentally, it was reported that RBA experts found that, ”all else being equal, a 1 per cent drop in interest rates would, over the long run, boost house prices by 17 per cent. The cash rate has been slashed from 4.75 per cent throughout most of 2011 to its current record-low level of 1.5 per cent as the central bank attempted to offset the end of the mining boom and encourage activity in the housing and consumption sector” (see RBA Analysis Suggests “Low” Interest Rates Stimulate Housing Construction).

In other words, the RBA may have allowed interest rates to go down too far or to go too low for too long, resulting, first, in excessive house prices and debt and, second, that this may have contributed to the current slow-down in GDP. If this is correct it may mean that, contrary to some analysts, there should not be any further reduction in interest rates – unless of course an unlikely recession occurs.

Interestingly, the US Federal Reserve has made four increases in interest rates whereas our RBA Head, Phillip Lowe, after threatening increases, has backed off. Of course, it would not be a good time politically for Lowe to increase rates even if he felt the inclination: from that viewpoint better to stay at present rates. Note that the head of the US Fed, Jerome Powell, has been under pressure from Trump to “keep rates low” with a view to help maintaining the strong growth in the US. But in what has been described as an “unusual” interview in public, Powell has asserted his independence (see Fed Chair Makes Unusual Interview). Lowe would be well advised to make his independence clear when he reports RBA monthly meetings to Treasurer Frydenberg.

Rate Cut Wrong in an Era of High Debt
(Letter by Des Moore published in AFR, 11 March 2019)

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.

Ispos Poll Shows Big Improvement in Coaliton Polling

Des Moore — Mon, 18 Feb 2019 08:57:19 +0000

Has the Tide Really Turned?

Today’s polling, not by NewspolI but by Ispos for Fairfax press, must have come as a bit of a surprise to those associates with that media group, as it also has for those supporting the Coalition. Most of the latter have been expecting an improvement in the Morrison government’s polling from the 46/54 TPP result last December but not by three percentage points to a 49/51 TPP. That is close enough to the election result in July 2016 under Turnbull (50.4/49.6) to lead the Fairfax media (and the ABC) to downplay it as much as they can.

But they also find it difficult to explain away the two percentage point increase in Morrison’s performance rate since December which means he is now a nine percentage points better performer than Shorten (49/40) and ten percentage points more preferred than Shorten as PM. (Strangely, Ispos have asked to interview me tomorrow morning, to which I have agreed).

Of course, this polling may be only a “one off” and we have to wait until the next Newspoll (which is probably next Monday) to see if it also shows a big improvement in the Coalition’s electoral hopes. But there can be no doubt that this poll provides a major “scare” to Shorten and Labor. Even the leftish political editor of the Fin Review has had to acknowledge this (see Coorey Says Test of Nerve For Labor). Note his comment on last week’s debate on whether to allow “exceptions” to border controls, viz

“There was a great deal of trepidation within the party last week over whether it had done the right thing by opening the door on boats, an entrenched political weakness which has cost it at least two elections this century”.

As I argued in last Friday’s Commentary, “Morrison’s attack on Shorten for showing weakness in handling Caucus is obviously correct (as the emergence of Deputy Albanese on TV suggests) and provides a useful stick for Morrison to use and argue that, if Labor were to win the election, they would again allow border controls to be breached. Morrison has already established that up to 300 refugees have obtained the approval of doctors to be transferred to Australia. It seems likely that under Labor border controls would be eased and smugglers would again penetrate access in one way or another”.

It is not only the AFR which is having to pull its horns in. As Andrew Bolt points out in his article in today’s Herald Sun:

“So how to stop them? Labor’s media shills offer two fixes. First, suggests The Age: “The turnback policy is cited by experts and insiders as the most effective deterrent … It would be prudent to buttress this barrier.” Pardon? Turning back boats is the Tony Abbott policy which The Age was still damning in 2015 as “morally repugnant”, and “ruthless and despicable”. It’s a policy many on Labor’s Left still hate. So why did turnbacks go from “morally repugnant” to something The Age wants more of? Why? Because The Age knows Labor has put sugar on the table for the people smugglers, and if boats now turn up it could lose the unlosable election. That’s why many Leftist journalists also insist Prime Minister Scott Morrison stop saying Labor has weakened our borders. He’s giving people smugglers ideas, they say. Guardian Australia’s Murphy even accused Morrison of “looking like you are whistling up new boats for a bit of cheap partisan advantage”.

Many leftist journalists insist Prime Minister Scott Morrison stop saying the policy has weakened Australia’s borders. How crazy. The Liberals now can’t inform voters that Labor’s policy is dangerous? And how dumb do journalists think the bosses of those multimillion-dollar people smuggling cartels are? They don’t need Morrison to tell them what Labor has done — especially not with activists celebrating at high decibels” (see Bolt on Fairfax Support for Labor).

Bolt’s article today would have been written before the editorial in today’s Age, which has done some backtracking even to acknowledging with mixed views that “There is, however, a legitimate issue for this election about whether the ALP is the better party to manage asylum seekers. The left of the party has only accepted Mr Shorten’s approach with great reluctance”. The Age adds that it “reported from Indonesia on Saturday that asylum seekers stranded there since 2013 said the bill had not made them more inclined to take the risk of boarding boats, but one source, long known to this organisation for having links to people smuggler networks, said that if the ALP won government, Mr Shorten could face a test of his nerve”. But it then makes the astonishing addition that there is no reason why the ALP cannot face down the challenge from people smugglers just as resolutely as the Coalition, apparently forgetting what happened to attempts to control borders under the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments! (see the full text of today’s Age editorial, which should surely lead to a change in editor of a paper which claims it is “independent always”).

Of course, the asylum seeker issue is only one of several explanations for the narrowing of Shorten’s lead in the polls.As today’s Age also acknowledges, Shorten “may also be suffering from some of his tax policies. Many voters, including, surprisingly, 30 per cent of ALP voters, are worried about his plans to end cash refunds of franking credits. Still, it is the issue of asylum seekers that appears to be weighing most heavily on the electorate. To maintain his lead, Mr Shorten will have to prove his mettle both to voters here and also to those waiting in Indonesia for a sign of weakness”.

As electorally beneficial as the border control issue is likely to be, Morrison can’t rely only on using that as a stick to beat Shorten with. Other policies need to be finalized and presented, including the budget before the election.

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.

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).

Dutton Exposes Turnbull

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

Dutton Exposes Turnbull Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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