Institute for Private Enterprise » United Nations

Morrison Changes CChange Policy

Des Moore — Sat, 22 Dec 2018 07:04:00 +0000

A Breakthrough on CChange Policy?

It would be premature to claim a breakthrough in the Morrison government’s climate change policy. But a potential starting point may have been made with its decision to count carried-over emissions credits from under the first and second Kyoto agreements to help meet the 2030 target of a 26% reduction in carbon emissions set by Turnbull in Paris. What this seems to mean is that energy section emissions will now have to fall by only 17 per cent, while transport and agriculture emissions are actually forecast to continue rising until at least 2030.

In total, Australia’s carbon emissions in 2030 would be only 7% lower than in 2005 but this would be in accord with the 26% lower target. That will still require further reductions in emissions between now and 2030 but much less than if the 26% reduction was followed. If Morrison sticks with this “new” policy, the Coalition would be in a much better position to contrast its policy with the 45% reduction adopted by Labor for 2030.

In particular, it will give the Coalition scope to argue that its policy will have a relatively small adverse affect on the economy/international competitiveness compared with Labor’s policy. Although Labor has not said it will not use credits, Labor spokesman Butler commented that “It is clear the Liberals are burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the vast majority of Australians who are crying out for desperate action on climate change”. This suggests it will stick with its 45% reduction policy (see Morrison Uses Carbon Credits to Meet Target).

Of course, it would be much better if Morrison were to indicate that Australia will now not make any further emissions reductions, which it appears to have done in regard to transport and agriculture. There is an implicit acknowledgement here that those industries should not suffer any adverse economic effects. So, why not go the whole hog?

OZ Attitude on CC Also Seems More Flexible

Today’s Australian also seems to adopted a more flexible approach to CC policy. It does this in three ways.

First, it has published more letters which mostly question the science (sic) used to justify emissions reduction policies (see OZ Letters Complain on CChange “Science”). These included my letter as follows

A Failure to Explain Climate-change Link with CO2

Letter Published in The Australian on 22 December (Ed Deletions in Square Brackets)

You correctly point out that “Australia should not accept measures that would damage our economy for nugatory gains in climate mitigation” and that “too often there is a yawning gap between climate rhetoric and reality” (Editorial 21/12). [Too often too the rhetoric originates from the UN Chief you quote].

The missing reality is the failure of some climate scientists and politicians to examine whether the predicted effects of climate changes actually happen. [Yet ]since the year 2000, temporary increases aside, global temperatures have been relatively stable despite the strong increase in carbon emissions staying in the atmosphere. Temperatures also remained stable in the post WW2 period to the late 1970s in the face of increasing emissions. Where is the explanation of the apparent lack of a correlation between increases in carbon emissions and temperatures, which the rhetoricians claim?

This unanswered question suggests the [danger] threat from usage of fossil fuels has lost credibility and policies aimed at reducing emissions should be re-examined . Australian governments should not continue policies to reduce emissions unless climate scientists can explain the periods of relative price stability in the face of increasing emissions. As Doug Hurst wrote yesterday, “the best Christmas present we could give ourselves would be to accept reality and cancel our futile and wasteful renewables policies”.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Second, it supports the adoption by Morrison of past carbon credits as part of its policy of reducing emissions by 26% by 2030. This is an acknowledgement by The Australian that it does not see the need for Australia to adopt such a large reduction adopted under Turnbull. Even the Fairfax press seems to accept that it is legitimate to adopt “UN accounting rules … which are effectively turning it into a 15 per cent cut on 2005 levels” (The Age, 22/12).
Third, The Australian’s editorial says “it is reasonable to argue that by meeting its Paris commitments Australia is doing too much. It is entirely unreasonable to suggest we are not doing enough. Those who argue that global warming is a looming crisis — if they are interested in science and facts — can only conclude the crisis is escalating despite our costly efforts. Yet they argue to double down on this futility”. This again adopts a more flexible approach towards how to treat Climate Change policy in a world where it is increasingly evident that many other countries are not taking the dangerous threat seriously (see OZ Supports Use of Credits to Meet Targets).

The foregoing, together with other developments mentioned in my earlier Commentary, provides more hope that CC policies are moving in the right direction.

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

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

Silly Season Arrives Early on “Dangers” From Fossil Fuels

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

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

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

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

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

Labor Policies Have Dangers

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

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

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

Immigration Policies Changing Overseas

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

CChange Conference; Judith Curry on Predictions of CChange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Wins at G20; Morrison Meets Trump; Germany Fails To Successfully Employ Renewables; Stone on Immigration

Des Moore — Sun, 02 Dec 2018 06:05:20 +0000

US Wins at G20 and Morrison Performs Well

Although there has been a “final statement” by leaders attending the meeting of the G20 in Argentina, the text does not seem available on the web and nor does the communique. However, some media are reporting on what was agreed. The outcome on trade was expected to reveal something on the what has been described as a dispute between the US and China (but which has implications for all trading nations). It appears that the US did succeed at G20 in obtaining agreement that the present arrangements need to be changed. The words reported as being used in the communiqué are as follows

“International trade and investment are important engines of growth, productivity, innovation, job creation and development,” the communique says. “We recognise the contribution that the multilateral trading system has made to that end. The system is currently falling short of its objectives and there is room for improvement.”(see G20 Meeting According to the Guardian)

The US also appears to have successfully downplayed the notion that globalised agreements on policy issues are the way to go.According to the Guardian report, in particular “speaking off the record, a senior US official told reporters the US “specifically preserved and explained our position for why we’re withdrawing from the job-killing Paris agreement”. The official claimed to have seen signs of “the coalition fraying” among some signatories to the Paris deal, “like Turkey, like Saudi Arabia, like Russia”. Separately, it is reported that all except the US agreed on retaining Paris, although some only agreed reluctantly (the next IPCC meeting starts in Poland tomorrow). Note also the downplaying of the role of the IMF.

Historically, international meetings such as the G20 (which started with meetings every six months but these are now only yearly) have in practice had little effect on policy decisions made by individual countries, particularly by the US. Under Trump’s Presidency the US will be even more “nationalist” in its influence (particularly through his White House adviser, John Bolton) and, even with the establishment of China as a more influential nation internationally, there is no sign of “globalisation” of policies.

However, the meetings do provide an opportunity for smaller countries such as Australia to meet with the larger countries and let their leaders know of any bilateral support or opposition. Morrison took advantage of this in his 25 minute meeting with Trump, which occurred because Trump cancelled his sideline meeting with Putin because of Russia’s attack on the Ukraine navy. While it appears that Morrison failed to use the opportunity to explain why Turnbull ceased to be PM, he seems to have indicated support for the US on trade and on its policy on Iran and terrorism generally. According to Weekend Australian, “the Trump administration views Mr Morrison as a hardliner on border protection and has looked favourably on the Prime Minister’s pushback against Iran and his review considering shifting Australia’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem”.

Trump certainly gave Morrison a big tick (see Morrison’s Meeting with Trump) and he should now use that to his advantage in Parliament and in enunciating Liberal policies. But as The Australian’s political editor points out, he can’t do it all himself. Rather, “Morrison needs to broaden that argument into a strategy based on policies that have been worked through with his colleagues and give his fractured followers something to focus on apart from each other” (see Shanahan on Morrison). As I argued in my Commentary last Thursday, Morrison needs to indicate that Turnbull’s (losing) policies have been changed and, in particular, his energy policy must ensure that electricity prices will fall substantially not through the so-called big stick approach but through a competitive market.

Energy Policy

On Energy Policy, there are recent developments which reinforce the views of skeptics on policies reducing CO2 emissions. These include

An assessment by a German analyst that “More and more people are about to realize, that supplying the world with stable energy from sun and wind only, will be impossible. Germany took on the challenge to show the world how to build a society based on green energy. They have now hit the wall. Germany has not reduced CO2 emissions over the last 10 years despite huge investments in green energy production capacity” (see Interesting Comment on Renewable Energy);
An assessment by a local physicist of the composition of C02 suggests that not only are ocean sources and plant sources independent but only some 27% of fossil fuel emissions remain in the atmosphere;
An analysis by Swedish sea level expert Nils-Axel Morner indicates that, contrary to IPCC reports, the rate of increase in sea levels has not increased.
Increased analysis showing mistakes in official temperature measurements which falsely show a faster increase in temperatures and a failure to acknowledge that the cause of increases is importantly due the natural causes.

The Morrison government could reduce the sympathetic beliefs by sections of the public, including last week’s street rallies by 10 year old children, that temperature and other weather changes are due mainly to human-caused production of fossil fuels. That would require a publication of a comprehensive report authored mainly by skeptics and should help the government justify the modification of existing targets of emissions and renewable.

Stone on Immigration

I have previously drawn attention to arguments advanced by Stone for a substantive reduction in immigration rates and for not signing up to the UN playing a role in advising on immigration policy. He has now published an article in Spectator complimenting Morrison on the government’s decision that Australia will join the US, Israel, Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Croatia, Hungary and Bulgaria in refusing to sign the UN’s ‘Global Compact on Migration’. At the same time he asks why the UN proposal to provide advice on refugees has been signed by Australia and why Morrison’s announcement to consider a reduction of only 30,000 from the immigration target of 190,000 (see Stone on Immigration). He points out that “Australia not only has a large and exceptionally costly refugee and other humanitarian resettlement program, but also makes contributions to countries (e.g., Jordan) where refugees are encamped, and in many cases to their countries of origin (most notably, Afghanistan)”.

Three More Terrorists; Fairfax/Ipso Poll; Immigration Policy

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

Serious Deficiencies In Security Revealed in Victoria

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

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

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

Fix terror tracking

The Australian, Letters, November 21

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

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

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

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

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

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

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

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

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

Fairfax-Ipsos Poll Shows Increased Coalition Rating

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

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

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

Immigration Statement by Morrison

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration Policy; Turnbull Rampant; Terrorist Identification Rules

Des Moore — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 20:24:00 +0000

Immigration Policy Needs to be Stated

In last Thursday’s Commentary I drew attention to an article in The Australian by John Stone suggesting that immigration isthe most obvious example of Morrison’s present policy deficiencies and arguing that the permanent settler program should be cut by 60,000. Stone added that if Morrison was “prepared to say that Australia will continue to be non-discriminatory on racial or ethnic grounds, but will henceforth reject all permanent visa applicants judged to be culturally incompatible with our Australian way of life, he would enormously enhance his electoral prospects next year”.

Since then the need for a statement on immigration policy has become more important given that the Intergovernmental Conference to Adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is to be held on 10 – 11 December in Marrakech, Morocco. Although not legally binding this would allow the UN (which will establish the compact itself through an agency) and representatives of other member countries a basis for seeking changes to our policy. One out of a large number of “rules” is that the compact “aims to mitigate the adverse drivers and structural factors that hinder people from building and maintaining sustainable livelihoods in their countries of origin” (see UN Agreement on Migration, which allows access to the Compact of no less than 34 pages!).

Australia should not be a member of any international body having the right to use such an arrangement as a basis for comment on our immigration policy. That is a matter for Australia alone. Last Friday’s Spectator weekly magazine has an editorial arguing strongly that we should not sign the compact and concluding that“if the Morrison government goes ahead and signs Australia up to these follies, thereby putting at risk our precious sovereignty and hard-won border security, it will be impossible to continue” the support it has been giving to the Morrison government.

Turnbull Continues Rampage

Contrary to his undertaking to keep out of politics after he ceased being PM, Turnbull has told a NSW Bar Association dinner of the various faults of the Liberal Party and of the failure of anyone who voted to remove him to explain why! According to an SMH/Age reporter, Turnbull “reserved his harshest remarks for the man blamed for instigating his demise – Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, who scored 35 votes against Mr Turnbull in the first leadership ballot, in what turned out to be a fatal blow. ‘If Peter was the answer, you’d have to ask: what was the question?’ Turnbull said to roars of laughter and applause. He later added: ‘I’m not a hater, I’m a positive person’” (see Turnbull on Dutton).

It is surprising that Morrison has not yet indicated that Turnbull insisted on policies which became inconsistent with Liberal values and that this was the cause of his removal. Such a statement would help the Coalition’s polling. Indeed, it may be a sine qua non for it.

Identifying Possible Terrorists

Both News Corp and Fairfax Press have continued today to write about the Bourke St incident and have been examining the problems faced by the police and intelligent agencies in assessing who should receive copies of “sensitive” assessments of possible terrorists and at what stage legal action should be taken to stop possible terrorist action. From the outside it appears that there are serious deficiencies in existing arrangements and, while there are limits in the extent to which terrorists can be identified, based on the experiences reported in regard to the Bourke St and other terrorists it should be possible to tighten constraints on people who are on the fringes without unduly affecting civil liberties.

The fact that the Bourke St terrorist had had his passport withdrawn sent a warning message and all relevant authorities should have been told. Similarly, the fact that he had also broken his numerous bails should have warranted a watching regime, as should the Perth man who had his passport closed. It is of concern that so many appear to be being watched and that this costs much. But Australia does not want to reach the French situation where armed forces are used in the Paris streets ie better to increase spending now when we likely have fewer possible terrorists (see Difficulties in Identifying Terrorists).

California Fires

The horrendous fires in California have produced many explanations of causes , including of course “climate change”. But CFACTs refers to the view of Marc Morano, a US climate expert who operates Climate Depot, that “California’s rain and drought are historically normal. In fact, the total U.S. acreage burned by wildfires is actually down in recent years. That said, there are anthropogenic roots to this catastrophe. But they are not the human causal links Governor Brown points to. Rapid population growth, extensive development, poor water management, and most critically, irresponsible forest management are principally to blame. Green activists blocked forest clearing in the name of species protection, leaving California with 129 million dead trees, clogging 8.9 million acres”.

Note the graph showing that the extent of US forests burned was much greater in the 1920-30s than it has been recently (see California Forest Fires).

Minimum Wage & S African Unemployment

Des Moore — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:14:54 +0000

Minimum Wage

Among the many important issues which are at present subject to debate in society and the media, there is an inclination to let pass the determination by the Fair Work Commission of the minimum wage. It has received limited attention partly because the body allocated the job of regulating workplace relations has long determined the minimum and even though its analyses have been poor. The FWC has made decisions which have put Australia’s minimum rate at or very close to the highest in the world (over $36,000 pa). But this has not benefited the less skilled because employers cannot afford to pay such a rate for them. Instead of being employed they go on to welfare or crime.

The main advocates of the minimum (trade union leaders) are of course paid well above that minimum but present themselves (wrongly) as “protecting the workers”. They are also accustomed to the regular procedure whereby they announce they are seeking a large increase in the knowledge that the FWC (which is well staffed with ex-trade unionists or supporters of trade unions) will award something less. Employers are usually too scared to announce opposition to whatever is awarded.

As it happens, the National Retail Association has bravely submitted to FWC that there should be no increase on the existing minimum. In my letter published in The Australian on 15 March I argued that the Turnbull government should also favour no increase but it has not said what it should or shouldn’t be. This is a disgrace.

Pay Rises Hurt the weak

(Letter Published in The Australian, 15 March. Last sentence in brackets omitted)

Your editorial rightly observes that the 7.2 per cent increase in the minimum wage proposed by the ACTU would “no doubt lead to job cuts amongst our most vulnerable workers”(ALP and unions set to pull the wrong levers on wages”, 13/3). And, as Judith Sloan points out, the Fair Work Commission’s contradictory justifications for its past decisions makes it a poor judge (“Until productivity improves, spare us the excuses for a wage lift”, 13/3).

In fact, the HR Nicholls Society has also long argued that the FWC (and its predecessor) has been unfair in effectively ignoring the adverse effects on employment of lesser skilled workers. As a result, FWC decisions cause unemployment to be higher than it should be and the poorer to bear the brunt.

The Turnbull government should submit to FWC that no increase be made in the present, high wage level. [It should support its submission by pointing to the 26.7 per cent unemployment rate in South Africa, where the union movement sought and partly obtained large increases in the minimum wage].

Des Moore, HR Nicholls Society, South Yarra Vic

South African Wages

The Letters Ed omitted the last sentence in the above letter I submitted, possibly because he/she thought any comparison with South Africa and its large black population is not relevant to Australia. Yet it is relevant to the lesser skilled and the very high rate of unemployment there. Official South African data indicates that there has been a very large increase in average wages (about 300 per cent since 2004) and that the “real” rate of unemployment is 36%, about 10 percentage points higher than the official figure.

I thought, however, that there would be some interest in the South African situation given that the election of a new President (Cyril Ramaphosa) has attracted attention in Australia. Ramaphosa has come up through the union movement and is reported to now be the richest man in the country (this is a rather scrappy section on him from Wikepedia, Ramaphosa). South Africa has a strong union movement and a highly regulated wage system (sic) but one which seems to have made decisions with no regard to possible adverse employment effects.

Also of interest for Australia is the considerable number of South Africans and Rhodesians who have emigrated here (about 200,000 S Africans), reflecting in part from the evictions of rural landholders from their land, often carried out violently and sometimes inflicting deaths. On becoming President, Ramaphosa indicated that land reform would be a top priority for him (purportedly to reduce inequality) and it seems likely that more white farmers will lose their land, with increased deaths. I have signed a petition by Q Society in support of additional migrant applicants being accepted (about 10,000 have signed so far). The seriousness of the situation for white farmers is indicated in the two attached articles from The Australian (see under South African Land Grab).

Ironically, the new Rhodesian government is reportedly appealing to white farmers to come back!

The report that the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, is considering special visa arrangements for white farmers deprived of their land to come to Australia, and has done so in a way that suggests that South Africa is not a “civilized” country, has caused the SA government to demand a retraction (see South Africa Complains). Turnbull has not specifically supported Dutton but has claimed that we have a non-discriminatory visa scheme. This doesn’t seem to be correct (see also Turnbull on South Africa).

Just what is or is not civilized is hard to determine. But there is no doubt that South Africa is in serious economic and social difficulties, with the black population suffering the most (except for the few having political/union power) and the white landholders facing violent attacks and deaths that are likely to increase. In these circumstances Turnbull should give Dutton full support instead of giving half-backed answers to questions about S Africa and possible visas or admissions. In fact, there is a case for Australia querying at the UN whether its citizens (black and white) are being fairly treated by the government.

Where is Australia on Iran?

Des Moore — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 22:16:18 +0000

Despite reports of thousands of arrests and over 20 deaths, the anti-government protests in Iran appear to be continuing, albeit on a much smaller scale. A member of the US think-tank, Brookings Institution, Suzanne Maloney, is a senior fellow on Middle East policy and describes them as reflecting “Anger over these [financial] losses came on top of years of pent-up frustration over a sluggish economy. When the government announced recent price increases and released an austere budget bill, it ignited at-times violent protests that spread rapidly to dozens of cities nationwide. Demonstrators quickly turned their fury on corrupt officials and the Islamic republic as a whole”… “What’s different is that it seems to have tapped into a deep sense of alienation and frustration, that people aren’t just demonstrating for better working conditions or pay, but insisting on wholesale rejection of the system itself ” (see article from the Washington Post dated 7 January, “Iran Expert says…”).

The article also suggests that there was a recent deterioration in the economic situation for most Iranians and that there was an apparent failure for them to benefit from the Obama-led decision to allow Iran access to its large $US reserves, which had previously been frozen when Iran was discovered to be developing nuclear weaponry. Officially, unemployment is at about 14% with youth unemployment about double that. But others suggest it is probably higher.

Other analysts draw attention to the increased opposition in Iran to the strict application of Islamic rules, such as the requirement for women to use hijabs and burkas. In an article in Weekend Australian, Caroline Overington argues that the protests have been “extraordinary for the bravery of women, many acting alone” against “the brutality of Iran’s Supreme Leader”. Overington refers to what is now a widely published picture of an Iranian woman standing on a bollard or a box who “has removed her hijab and is waving it at the end of a rod” as a part of the protest. But where, she asks, is the West? The hijab, she claims, is “not a democratic ideal” but “a symbol of repression of women in the Middle East” (See Women in Iran, Jan 6).

That is a question which Turnbull should help answer by supporting the leadership shown by US President Trump in forcing a meeting of the UN Security Council and the Europeans and Russians to expose their Iran policies there. Their difference of opinion with the US at the UN shows that country’s importance as a world leader in ensuring Western values and that it is shameful that others have held back. Australia should make it clear that it is not in that group.

The fact that Trump has been attacked in a just-published book entitled Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House should not mean that US foreign policies, such as the one above in regard to Iran, be dismissed: they should stand on their merits (or not), which in this case is laudable and important in a world exposed to extremist Islamic beliefs and policies, such as those adopted by Iran.

It might be noted that, contrary to the impression given by the news presented by the ABC and SBS, Trump’s popularity measure of about 40% (and has increased recently) in the US. That is higher than Turnbull’s Performance measure of 32% in last December’s Newspoll. Our unemployment rate is also higher than the US’s, which recently recorded the lowest ever rate of 6.7% for black Americans.

SSex Marriage, Taxation & Terrorism

Des Moore — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:07:11 +0000

Turnbull Confirms He’s Unsuitable as Liberal Leader

Once again, Turnbull has shown that he should not be leader of the Liberal Party. His handling of the Coalition’s policy on same sex marriage failed to recognise that the plebiscite produced substantial opposition (38.4%) to legislation allowing marriage between people of the same sex and that a proportion of those who voted Yes would also have wanted any such legislation to include provisions protecting freedom to express opposition to such marriages for religious reasons alone. Other opponents not necessarily based on religion simply wanted “marriage” to remain as a relationship between a man and a woman and that, whether between relationships of the same gender or even between a man and a woman but not formally married, should be expressed as “partnerships” or in similar vein.

Far from being a “victory for Australia”, as Turnbull claimed, the passage of the legislation accentuated division amongst those in his own party and many unspoken outside it. As Paul Kelly wrote yesterday, “this is one of the greatest defeats for conservatives in many decades” (see Kelly on Protecting Religious Views). Some would see this as one of the aims of Turnbull.

The Australian’s political editor Dennis Shanahan concluded that “the cold, hard fact for Turnbull is that while the same-sex marriage legislation was passed overwhelmingly, on the issue of extra religious freedoms, which he had promised during the campaign, he was isolated from the vast majority of his Coalition colleagues. More than 80 Coalition members in both houses spoke and voted in favour of religious freedom amendments. The 61.6 per cent vote in favour of same-sex marriage in the postal survey meant it was going to become law; the remaining issue, and the focus of this week’s parliamentary debate, was religious protection” (see Shanahan on Turnbull’s Failure on Religious Protection).

Shanahan argues that, as the PM who passed same sex marriage legislation, Turnbull is “working towards improved numbers in the next Newspoll survey, the last before Christmas”. That survey, presumably on Monday 18 December, will attract more than usual interest.

True, the Turnbull government has established a review of religious freedom by a panel of four headed by former Attorney General Phillip Ruddock to report early next year. But this will be conducted in circumstances where the same sex marriage legislation has already been passed and, thus, where supporters of appropriate protective amendments will carry much less weight in the debate next year. There is also no indication that it will consider protection of critics whose views are not based on religion per se.

It is unclear when Turnbull’s “victory” will be forgotten but as PM he remains hanging on a thread.

Do Company Tax Collections Accurately Reflect Tax Liability

Against a background in which many other countries have lower company tax rates, a major lowering of Australia’s rates has been an important policy objective of the Turnbull government but, reflecting Labor’s opposition in the Senate, has been unsuccessful. On the other side, considerable attention has been given to reports that Tax Commissioner Jordan has been conducting a “crusade” against multinational companies which appear to pay taxes which are small when account is taken of their large activity in Australia. Last March, the ACTU president told the Press Club that 679 companies “pay not one cent of tax” but omitted to mention that unions pay no tax.

In the Weekend Australian, Terry McCrann suggested that, through poor public presentations, Jordan has “polluted the debate” about assessing company tax payments while his Deputy Jeremy Hirschhorn appears to be making “strong positive statements “. In a recent statement, Hirschhorn said the community should have confidence that the largest companies are being required to pay the right amount of tax on their Australian profits, and “most do so voluntarily. Australia has one of the strongest corporate tax systems in the world”.

McCrann also draws attention to Hirschhorn’s “focus on the number of groups which paid either no tax or small amount of tax relative to gross income” and, in consequence, “does notice the rubbish published in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald and broadcast by the ABC. According to McCrann, Hirschhorn stressed three things that it was “important to remember”.

Corporate income tax is payable on profits, not gross income.
In any given year a significant percentage of even the largest companies make losses, not just for tax purposes, but also for accounting purposes.
(The data) reflects the tax returns as lodged, and does not reflect subsequent ATO compliance activity”.

This is an important assessment by McCrann and, for those interested, is worth reading in full.

Terrorism and Counterterrorism

The recent terrorist attempt at killing British PM Theresa May, and the report that over 20,000 in the UK are regarded as potential terrorists and as such are being watched, was followed here by a 20 year old being subjected to two terrorism related charges for intending to “use a firearm to shoot and kill as many people as he could in Federation Square on New Year’s Eve” The man charged had also been under watch for two year.

It was timely therefore that I was invited by AIJAC ‘s Dr Colin Rubenstein to attend a lunch last Friday at which an American expert on terrorism and counterterrorism, Dr Mark Levitt, spoke and answered questions. He is a Fellow and Director at The Washington Institute and has written extensively in a wide range of journals and newspapers.

He spent considerable time on what might happen in Syria and after the “defeat” of ISIS in Iraq. That seems to be resulting in the establishment of mini-Isis’s including in Libya, where there are now three “governments”. Part of what he had to say is reflected in a recent address he gave to a United Nations Committee on Counterterrorism (see Levitt on Terrorism & Counter). Note in particular

In the US “terrorist threats from home grown violent extremists of all ideological stripes have increased significantly”.
It is critical that preventing and countering violent extremism “address the full gamut of extremist ideologies radicalizing individuals and mobilizing them to violence”. In the United States, that means “focusing not only on Islamist ideology and narratives but also on white supremacist, far-right, and far-left ideologically inspired violence.”
“Efforts to address Islamist violent extremists will be more effective as part of a comprehensive approach that addresses other types of extremists as well”.
“ Working with local community groups is important”.

Turnbull’s Playing For Time.

Des Moore — Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:34:49 +0000

Turnbull Playing For Time

By suddenly announcing that the resumption of Parliament will be delayed until 4 December, Turnbull has postponed by a week the possibility of a defeat on the floor of the Lower House. At the same time, it was indicated that the finishing date for Parliament could now be Friday 15 December, or even later. The stated reason(s) for seeking the extra time are that it may be needed to debate the legislation on same sex marriage and resolve outstanding citizenship issues. Turnbull told The Australian that

“ he was ‘very confident’ parliament would pass same-sex marriage legislation before Christmas”. “Parliament absolutely can and I’m very confident it will, and my priority and the government’s priority is to recognise the will of the people is that we should get this done, and that’s what we’re going to be doing everything we can to achieve it before Christmas,” the Prime Minister said. “I think the Opposition have got a similar commitment, so between us I’m very confident we can make it work. “There’ll obviously be a lot of debate, a lot of amendments discussed. That’s what parliament’s for, but ultimately we know we have got a very clear direction from our masters, the Australian people.”

The reality is that, with a favourable No vote on SSex marriage now extant, Turnbull is attempting to ensure that, before Christmas, as little attention as possible will be directed at policy issues which are controversial or at issues which may add to differences within the Coalition and lead to a no confidence motion. However, while there is now no need for an extended debate in Parliament on the SSex issue, there are likely to be plenty of MPs who wil welcome the opportunity to have their voices heard and their constituents informed. And the Opposition is unlikely to object. If his strategy is successful Turnbull will be “safe” as PM until early February next year.

Bonn Climate Change Conference

In yesterday’s Commentary I drew attention to the fortnight’s Climate Change conference held by the UN in Bonn and ending last Saturday 18 November. I noted that there was no outcome as such but that the publication in the New York Times of two open Graphics released at the conference seemed to confirm the statement by the UN climate chief that countries were way behind the needed trajectory of reductions in carbon emissions agreed at the Paris Conference in 2015.

I also said that it appeared that no Australian Minister attended the conference. However I have now been referred to a UN press release showing that I had missed the attendance of Environment Minister Frydenberg for about seven days and had also missed two of his own press releases, one drawing attention to his own attendance (see Frydenberg on UN CChange Conference) and the other to the election of Fiji as chair of the conference (see Frydenberg on Fiji Presidency of UN CC). I missed these releases because I could not find any reference to them in Australian media.

A remarkable feature of the UN release is that it not only detailed 33 other “participants” from Australia but showed that these constituted only “small beer” of the total claimed participants of 19,115! I suppose that is now the norm for attendances at UN Conferences on Climate Change but it is a little surprising given that it appears to have been mainly “catching up” with progress toward achieving the Paris agreement of 2015 to reduce carbon emissions by 2030. That the charts published in the New York Times article attached to my Commentary indicate “no progress” doubtless provides justification (sic) for more conferences to assess progress and to urge for action. They also support the view that Australia should be in no hurry to increase its reductions of carbon emissions. It would be of some interest if “performance” charts could be compiled and published for the larger emitters since 2015 but no reliable data may be available to do that.

Below is the list of Australian “participants” at the conference but the total of this list (and the names of the participants) comes from the UN press release and Frydenberg’s release does not even mention the total. I wonder who approved such a large number for what was obviously going to be a minor event. Note that there were no participants from Treasury or Finance and hence (presumably) no reference at the conference to the possible adverse economic effects from the aimed reduction in carbon emissions

Australian Participants at UN Climate Change Conference November 2017
H.E. Mr. Joshua Frydenberg Minister of Environment and Energy Office of the Minister for Environment and Energy

H.E. Mr. Patrick Suckling Ambassador for the Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Andrea Faulkner Assistant Secretary Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Finn Pratt Secretary Department of The Environment and Energy
Ms. Lynette Margaret Wood Ambassador Australian Embassy Berlin Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Kushla Munro Assistant Secretary International Branch Department of The Environment and Energy
Mr. Kane Silom Media Advisor Office of the Minister for Environment and Energy
Ms. Lauren Bain Deputy Head of Mission Embassy of Australia, Berlin Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Sally Box Director International Branch Department of The Environment and Energy
Ms. Elizabeth Buchan Policy Officer Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Peter Elder Director Global Development Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Chao Feng Policy Officer Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Louise Foster Executive Assistant Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Julia Gardiner Assistant Director

International Branch Department of The Environment and Energy
Ms. Lisa Gittos Policy Officer Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Katherine Hancock Assistant Director Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Phoebe Hardefeldt Policy Officer Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Peter Horne Assistant Director Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Aaron Kirby Senior Policy Officer International Branch Department of The Environment and Energy
Ms. Margalit Levin Second Secretary Embassy of Australia, Berlin Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Anna Mallard Policy Officer Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Richard Merzian Assistant Director Global Development Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Russell Miles Director Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Edmund Mortimer Assistant Director Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Fergus Pope Senior Advisor, Energy Office of the Minister for Environment and Energy COP23.PLOP

Mr. Carsten Rempka Australian Embassy, Berlin Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Marco Salvio Director Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Kathryn Sangster Policy Officer Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Zoe Sinclair Assistant Director Department of The Environment and Energy
Ms. Deciana Speckmann Policy Officer Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Matthew Stuchbery Assistant Director Department of The Environment and Energy
Ms. Nicole Thomas Counsellor Paris OECD Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Steven Turnbull Policy Officer Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Gareth Williams Director Sustainability and Climate Change Branch Depart