@ScottMorrisonMP

SBS impartiality & Amanda McKenzie’s colossal clumsiness

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Good to see the SBS has made sure it has an impartial position on topics such as climate change remains steadfastly in line with its charter. It not only avoided enlargening the font in bold of certain choice words spoken by Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie but it also refrained from putting a picture of the broadcaster’s ultimate boss holding a lump of coal. The irony is that the Climate Council guru’s facts were, unfortunately, wrong.

PM Scott Morrison’s facts were by and large correct. Never mind that they disagreed with McKenzie’s narrative. Good to see that SBS followed up with a rigorous line of questioning to get her to point out exactly where the PM was out of line. Sadly, that was a bridge too far for the alarmist journalists.

Presumably “colossal bullshit” should have been evidence enough. The Climate Council did release a statement but instead of countering fact, it just produced its own interpretation of what it wanted to hear, rather than point out where Morrison had blatantly told porky pies.

For instance the Climate Council stated:

Morrison statement: “Australia is responsible for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions. Australia is doing our bit on climate change and we reject any suggestion to the contrary.”

Fact-check: Australia is the 17th largest polluter in the world, bigger than 175 countries.  We are the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. 

CM: It is irrelevant. Australia’s GHG as measured by the IPCC, IEA and Eurostat are 1.3% of human-made CO2. It is the truth from sources that align with the Climate Council. It only shows that the previous 16 countries absolutely dwarf us by comparison. China is 29.3% on its own.

Furthermore to make statements that our coal exports should be counted in our emissions number is the same argument as saying that every imported passenger car, transport truck and commercial jet should have emissions docked against America, Japan, Korea and the EU.  That would be consistent

Morrison statement: “And our Great Barrier Reef remains one of the world’s most pristine areas of natural beauty. Feel free to visit it. Our reef is vibrant and resilient and protected under the world’s most comprehensive reef management plan.”

Fact-check: In 2016 and 2017, the Great Barrier Reef was severely damaged through back-to-back bleaching events which killed half of all corals on the planet’s largest living structure. Australia’s current goal, if followed by other countries, would sign the death warrant of the Great Barrier Reef. 

CM: Maybe she should speak to Professor Peter Ridd and question why the James Cook University faculty lost (although still not completely settled due to an appeal) all aspects of the unfair dismissal case against it for Ridd’s refusal to buckle to the cabal’s orthodoxy. The reef is not dying. It is thriving. So much so that Greenpeace needed to use a picture of bleached coral in The Philippines to distort the truth because the GBR presented no such photographic opportunities.

Morrison statement: “Our latest estimates show both emissions per person and the emissions intensity of the economy are at their lowest levels in 29 years.”

Fact-check:  Australia has the highest emissions per capita in the developed world. It is true that Australia’s emissions per capita have fallen more than most countries [is that colossal bullshit?], but this is from an extraordinarily high baseline [so what?] and has largely been driven by rapid population growth. Even with this drop, we still have the highest per capita emissions in the developed world. Our emissions per capita are higher than Saudi Arabia, a country not known for its action on climate change. Ultimately, our international targets are not based on per capita emissions. 

CM: Australia’s CO2 emissions per unit of GDP since 1990 have fallen 33.9%. Wrong Amanda, Canada has higher emissions per capita at 16.85 vs our 16.45. Unless under Justin Trudeau Canada has lost developed nation status which is highly possible! Saudi Arabia is 19.39. So, in fact, your comments are incorrect.

We could go on. So if Amanda McKenzie wants to throw the PM under the bus with profanity it helps if she actually provided accurate figures.

Perhaps the most colossal bullshit to come from McKenzie was this,

Over the winter we saw bushfires burning across Australia while the Amazon rainforest and the Arctic were on fire. A major new report shows that suburbs in Sydney, Perth and Melbourne could experience serious sea level disasters every year on our current trajectory.

It would appear that the Australian seaside property prices aren’t at (excuse the pun) fire-sale prices and that the bushfires in the Amazon, Australia and the Arctic are not related to climate change. The truth is that the acreage lost to bushfires have fallen 24% over the last 18 years. Unless NASA is lying.  Maybe the Climate Council has been channelling the Sierra Club CEO Aaron Mair?

 

F’king hell mate

Follow the data, people. Apologies for the amount of climate change related posts of late. It is the climate alarmist silly season. The video above shows how easy it is to manipulate mindsets. Good to see that our PM Scott Morrison was thinking about smart drive-thrus. After all, as we showed, kids love McDonald’s ahead of climate strikes so merging technologies and fast food should connect the next generation. Uber should be looking to develop their rideshare app to go via fast-food chains. ScoMo has his finger on the pulse.

Atlassian billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes doesn’t agree although he did reveal what an expensive Bellevue Hill private boy school education does for teaching how to respect the highest public office in Australia. ScoMo was dead right not to attend a summit where the organizers deliberately banned those from coal-related nations from speaking whilst demanding their cash. No need to join a summit where most of the attendees are from nations with high levels of corruption and have a sole purpose to cash in on the guilt of weak-willed western nations.

Maybe MC-B should reflect on what the UN summit does to cause children to meltdown thanks to irresponsible adults feeding them with unfounded scaremongering. That is where the anger should have been placed in that room. Who needs to show up? Then again behaving like children is a bit of a theme at climate summits. Profanity too.

Being a successful software developer doesn’t always extend to being an axe in other fields. CM also made reference to why MC-B should be supporting the Minerals Council of Austalia as so much of his business actually relies on it.

Zali, best ask Lisa Wilkinson for Jacinda’s number. You might need it

Zali Steggall proclaimed she would fight for her signature campaign promise – “climate change” – and hold the government to account on the environment in her victory speech. She won her seat in CM’s own electorate of Warringah. That is democracy. No, CM did not vote for her. The result stands, despite a despicable campaign against the incumbent which included leaving faeces outside his office.

Sadly for Steggall, the broader Australian public repudiated climate change given the terrible performance of the Greens and Labor who pushed this cornerstone uncosted agenda. Climate evangelist Independent Dr Kerryn Phelps lost her seat of Wentworth despite the same endorsement from former UN climate chief Christina Figueres. Julia Banks also fell despite receiving the global warming high priestess’ praises. Climate change wasn’t the key issue for those wealthy latte-sipping constituents across the harbour in Wentworth, just as they weren’t for Warringah.

Steggall had one role – to oust the 25-year incumbent former PM Tony Abbott. She succeeded. It was a mission unlike any other seen in Aussie politics. She had 1,400 people to help her. “Vote 1 Zali Steggall” placards adorned many doors in CM’s neighbourhood. CM always thought sticking an Abbott poster outside one’s house would incite an act of hatred. On election day we got proof of that, including a stabbing. Alex Turnbull even called Abbott a “terrorist”. If there were more terrorists like him we would have fewer bushfires and fewer deaths at sea. Imagine if he accepts the Ambassador to the US role. ScoMo can hardly pick Julie Bishop especially after Bill Shorten endorsed her. CM digresses.

Although Steggall denied the role of activist group GetUp! during the campaign, she has now acknowledged its role. She said,

I think some of [GetUp!’s] aspects have been divisive … but on the other hand, they have raised the profile of climate change…They are here to raise awareness of issues and, for me, that is part of democracy. We are all the better for having­ the variety of issues and debate and opinions at the table.

GetUp! didn’t get much bang for the $13.5mn outside of Abbott. Peter Dutton in the seat of Dickson, Queensland and Christian Porter in the electorate of Pearce, Western ­Australia both increased their margin. GetUp!’s other targets – Greg Hunt, Kevin Andrews and Josh Frydenberg in Victoria as well as Nicolle­ Flint in South Australia, suffered swings against them but all kept their seats. Perhaps they may feel better knowing Clive Palmer won nothing with his $60mn advertising blitz although already Labor sooks are complaining this was indirect spending on the Libs campaign.

In 2022, if Steggall chooses to run, it is unlikely she’ll get anywhere near that level of backing. She is a one term MP. The Liberals will put forward a new candidate who isn’t Abbott. Like Sharma in Wentworth, the Liberals should retake the seat. Steggall won’t have 1,400 volunteers to support her. Nor $13.5mn in GetUp! Backing. If Morrison gets a majority then her vote will be useless in the lower house. She will have served her purpose. If she has any chance of winning she’ll need to trade in the Nissan Pathfinder.

Steggall might do her best to push climate change in parliament for her luxury SUV loving constituents but it will be to no avail. Her biggest global warming sponsors, Labor, will be desperate to find a leader to pull them back from the left. Sadly the first two candidates – Plibersek (who has now stepped away) and Albanese – are of the left and the third suggestion is Jim Chalmers, who was a principle advisor to Rudd. Even Chris Bowen has announced he might run. If they have to bring a new platform, it can’t be the politics of envy and class warfare nor loony uncosted climate change targets nor identity. A new Labor leader will have a lot of trouble reuniting such unmitigated failure in opposition.

The irony is that if Labor scales back the extent of renewable energy targets and emissions then how much of a crisis could it have been at the time of the election? It either is or it isn’t and to try to suggest to Australians that the cost of doing nothing was so high, they didn’t buy it. Who could forget when former PM Kevin Rudd said climate change “was the greatest moral challenge of our generation” in 2007? It wasn’t long after that his ETS was scrapped. Flimflam.

Steggall might say, “I think what was rejected was Labor’s economic policy“. That is true but it was also Labor’s climate change policies which were inextricably linked to people’s pocket books. She might reflect on how many seats that are now blue that weren’t decades ago. They are the aspirational voters, just like that poor chap that lost his job for asking Shorten about tax relief for those on $250,000. Those who don’t want the government in their pocket. Steggall’s electorate is highly affluent. They can weather storms far better than the average Joe.

Maybe Zali Steggall should catch up with Lisa Wilkinson at the Avenue Rd Cafe in Mosman and ask for NZ PM Jacinda Ardern’s direct line because they will both be wondering why PM Scott Morrison isn’t returning either of their calls!

0.000016% vs 0.0000012%

Simple mathematics. While alarmists keep banging on about climate change, let’s do basic mathematics. The IPCC admit that the human contribution to CO2 is only 3% of the total. That is, 97% is naturally occurring.

The equation:

———————

C02 in our atmosphere: 0.04% (400ppm)

Man made CO2 driven by fossil fuels: 3%

Australia’s contribution to global CO2: 1.3%

So 0.04% x 3% x 1.3% = 0.000016%.

So if we went to zero emissions in Australia our contribution to the global total would be cut by 0.000016%. Hardly worth billions in expenditure.

NZ PM Jacinda Ardern has said her country will be zero carbon emissions by 2050. NZ contribution to world carbon emissions is currently 0.1% meaning her virtue signaling will save the world by 0.0000012%!!

Pointless.

Profligacy paid for by wishful thinking

Lots of promises. Lots of grand assumptions. To be honest, best just ignore the minutiae. It’s a complete waste of time. The biggest question is, if the global economy, by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s own admission, is slowing down (just look at government bond yields flattening/gone negative) how on earth is Australia going to grow receipts from $485.2bn in 2018/19 to $566.9b in 2021/22? A 17% growth in tax revenue. Expenses will rise from $487bn to $559.9bn respectively. Give aways +15%. Best hope the world economy doesn’t tank. Expenses are locked in. Tax revenues aren’t.

Worse, these projections have all been massaged higher than the 2018-19 budget. What has changed to our overall net position in the last 12 months to gain such confidence? Climate alarmists would blush at the extent of the upward massaging of numbers. Did Treasury sit down after consuming 3 bottles of Absinthe to come up with these revisions? Think about it. How can we get an extra $5.9bn in tax receipts in 2021-22 when conditions are sure to be worsening?

This is NOT an old school Coalition budget by any measure. This is a crossing fingers, closing the eyes and hoping we muddle through budget. If the proverbial hits the fan, a monster deficit is assured. Take it to the bank.

We are technically at full employment. Unless we embark on mass migration (which we’re looking to cut) how will flat wage enduring Aussies and corporates contribute to a 17% rise in the Canberra coffers? Wishful thinking. The government targets around 23.9% of GDP for tax receipts and pats itself on the back for “the government’s average real spending growth is expected to be the lowest of any Commonwealth government in over 50 years.” Although that claim is dispelled by their own tables contained here.

Cutting taxes can create more tax revenue. Poland sliced its corporate taxes in half in 2004 and doubled revenue. However that was more a grey money grab than pure unadulterated tax policy spurring public revenue growth.

Giving away more money to the middle class through tax cuts and hand outs in the hope they spend more seems wishful thinking. The problem is if global growth hits a wall, we don’t have a Howard/Costello surplus to buffer the storm. No $38bn backstop in the war chest.

China, the US and EU are struggling. Things are so bad in the US that the Federal Reserve had to chicken out of any more rate rises because it would tank the economy. Our growth will stall if the world slows. Forget 28 straight years of continuous growth in Australia. The knock on effects will see unemployment surge, consumption fall off a cliff, housing prices crash and tax revenues slump. Forget a $7.1bn surplus. Think $20bn deficit because the promises are too grand and the tax receipts blindingly optimistic.

Of note in the 2019-20 budget is the expansion of the ATO’s tax grab from evil multinationals and HNW individuals who’ve avoided paying their fair share. That will result in a $3.612bn extr over the next 4 years. That against the $5.74bn tax cut for middle class Aussies over the same period. Spending up everywhere. Just not sure why the Treasury hasn’t pointed to where the extra revenue is coming from.

Take the assumptions of 2.75% GDP growth flat to 2020/21. Unrealistic. Treasury assumes the same labour force participation rate with unemployment remaining to 5% and wage growth of 3.25% in 2020/21, up from 2.1%. All looks so simple. Yet inflation is expected to grow to 2.5% meaning real wages will be flat.

Aussies, saddled under 180% debt to GDP, shouldn’t take any sense of comfort from this budget. What Frydenberg presented tonight was nothing more than a hope that the most rosy scenarios play out when thunder clouds are so obviously rolling in. It’s utterly irresponsible. Yet that’s today’s political class – spineless. They’re unprepared to tell Aussies that they have to be prepared to live with much less. Instead of asking us to tighten our belts, a whole load of freebies that can’t be paid for end in our laps so they can hold on to power for a bit longer.

ABC Staff Engagement Survey – less than 50% engaged

The Morrison government is promising $44m in extra funding for the ABC for “enhanced news gathering” over 3 years. When will the Coalition realize that this treat will not make the ABC show any leniency in the lead up to the federal election? Did they even bother reading the ABC Staff Engagement Survey buried on page 94 of the 2017/18 Annual Report? Less than half are engaged.

The ABC conducted its second Corporation-wide employee engagement survey in late 2017. The previous survey was conducted in November 2015, with outcomes reported in the 2016 Annual Report.

The overall employee engagement score from the 2017 survey was 46%, down six points from the 2015 results. 6% down!!!!

This moved the ABC from the median to the bottom quartile when benchmarked with other Australian and New Zealand organisations. Bottom quartile!!!

Employees expressed the need for improvement in several areas, including:

• that the ABC Leadership Team needs to be more visible, accessible and communicate more openly.

that the ABC needs to do a better job of managing poor performance. Even the staff want to move duds on. A commercial spirit among the staff?

• that employees want to know what action is being taken to address feedback received in the survey.

The ABC management (no longer with us) conducted sessions on the back of the survey.

Three key priorities were identified from these sessions:

1. The way in which the ABC recruits, contracts, inducts, develops and manages its people needs a huge amount of work. Inefficiency!!!

2. More communication is needed between teams – employees want to know what other teams are doing, and want less top-down, hierarchical communication. Bureaucracy!!!

3. Many of the ABC’s processes, tools and technology don’t work effectively for its people. Obsolescence!!!

So instead of giving the ABC more money, perhaps an efficiency drive driven by a change manager could achieve the same outcomes desired by the market for far less cost. This reads like an organization that has too much fat.

To that effect, the annual report also noted:

Bureaucracy Stop was launched in March 2018 with the aim of creating a working environment with less bureaucracy and red tape. The program wrapped three months later with 147 ideas on simplification of processes, 55 of which were resolved by the end of the financial year. Where a simplification solution wasn’t available in response to an idea, an explanation was provided as to why that process needed to remain.

What were the dollar savings for these 55 improvements?

Maybe the government should say to ABC management for every dollar saved, the ABC keeps 50c? For a broadcaster with over $1.1bn in funding, 10% of savings would mean they keep c.$60m. Morrison’s $44mn is easily covered.

Digging a bit deeper into the stats of the ABC reveals a big need for overhaul. Comparing 2017/18 and 2015/16 we see that TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 49.7% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 54.0%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Hardly a stretch.

Since 2008, the average salary of ABC’s staff has risen 18% from $86,908 to $105,219. Total staff numbers have risen from 4499 to 4939. Therefore salaries as a percentage of the ABC revenues have risen from 37.1% of the budget to 50%. The ABC’s ability to generate sales from content has fallen from A$140mn in 2015/16 to A$46mn last fiscal year.

The multicultural SBS has seen its budget grow from A$259mn in 2008 to A$412mn in 2017. SBS staff numbers have grown from 844 to 1,466 over the same period with average salaries rising from A$82,689 to A$88,267 or 7.2%. Which begs the question why is the SBS able to operate at 31% of the budget in salaries while the ABC is at 50%? Surely the ABC’s economies of scale should work in its favour? Clearly not.

Australia’s largest commercial terrestrial station, Nine Network, has 3,100 employees against revenues of $1.237bn. So to put that into context, Nine can generate c. A$400,000 per employee whereas the ABC generates A$238,168 in tax dollars per employee. In a sense the ABC could be shut down, and each employee paid $108,000 in redundancy costs annually for two years simply by selling off the land, buildings and infrastructure. The SBS generates A$281,000 in tax dollars per employee. The ABC will argue it deserves $400,000/employee revenues rather than a 46% headcount reduction to be on equal terms with the efficiency in the private sector.

Stop throwing more money at the problem and get an aggressive MD who will make a real difference. Pay him/her millions to save $100s of millions. The taxpayer deserves no less. So do over half the 5,000 employees at the ABC who are dissatisfied with the very organization which is so terribly run.