ScoMo’s (recommended) manifesto
Everyone seeking, like myself, to avoid a Labor government must wish Prime Minister Morrison well. However, in deciding our votes at the next federal election, I and many other Dis-Cons (disaffected conservatives) will judge him not by words but by his government’s actions. So what have we seen so far, and what future actions would reassure us?
Of course, Morrison deserves some time to ‘prove’ himself. It isn’t possible, in five or six weeks, to do more than begin to deflect the ship of state from Malcolm Turnbull’s left-of-centre course.
Given that, this Dis-Con’s overall judgment is that, with qualifications, Morrison’s actions to date have been encouraging. He was wrong to dump the 2014 budget measure raising the age pension eligibility age from 67 (to be reached in 2023) to 70 (in 2035). That was a much-needed structural reform given an Australian population whose longevity has been increasing dramatically. He was also plain silly to contemplate establishing an Aboriginal ‘equivalent’ of Australia Day, thereby encouraging all those seeking to divide Aboriginal Australians from the rest of us. Nevertheless, the latest Newspoll suggests that, although still badly trailing Labor, Morrison’s performance is renewing support for the Coalition.
As to the future, Morrison has started badly in saying that Australia will not withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Worse, he sought to justify this by saying that doing so would upset our Pacific Islands Forum neighbours, many of whom bare-facedly profess a fear of being engulfed by the Pacific Ocean because of ‘climate change’. Since this fear has no factual foundation, and since these countries parade it only in support of their outstretched begging bowls, all Morrison need do is to reassure them that Australia will keep on pouring taxpayers’ money into those bowls irrespective of Paris.
The objections to Paris are twofold. First, because it bases itself on the world’s all-time greatest scientific hoax, and second (and even more sinister) because its real genesis lies in the United Nations push for a ‘New World Order’, where decisions are removed from national governments and handed to international bureaucrats. Australian voters have been slow to wake up to this process of betrayal, foisted on them not only by the UN but also by our own Department of Foreign Affairs. But awakening they now are, and if Morrison does not comprehend that he will not survive the next election.
Paris, indeed, is one of two acid tests Morrison needs to pass in coming months. The other relates to immigration policies; and just as Paris finds its origins in the UN’s stealthy ambitions, so in the migration area those same ambitions are obtruding via the Global Compact for Migration. Be in no doubt. If Australia signs up to this monstrous treaty – which those same Foreign Affairs bureaucrats have already had a significant role in drafting – we will have abandoned the most important element in any nation’s sovereignty – the right to determine, in John Howard’s words, ‘who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come’.
Both Paris and this proposed migration treaty will shortly be the subject of major international meetings, in Poland (3-14 December) and Morocco (10-11 December), respectively. The Morocco meeting is intended to adopt the Global Compact on Migration, and the Poland meeting to turn a now legally non-binding set of ‘aspirations’ into a legally binding treaty – one that ties the membership into both targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and financial obligations for developed country members, commencing (!) at US$100 billion per annum.
In both cases, Australia has only two sensible choices. One is simply to refuse to send a delegation to either meeting, saying unequivocally that it will not sign up to whatever they may produce. The other is to send delegations, hand-picked in each case personally by Morrison and with clear instructions to oppose every jot and comma of the UN-led processes involved.
Morrison’s decisions regarding these two meetings have the capacity to make or break his electoral prospects. The right decisions will reassure all those Dis-Cons without whose votes he cannot win next year’s election; the wrong ones will go a long way towards ensuring his failure. That said, there are of course many lesser actions Morrison could take whereby those disaffected conservatives could perhaps be persuaded to return to the Liberal fold. For example:
– Cut immigration by (say) 80,000 per annum, spread over the next two years. (That would be particularly persuasive because of Morrison’s own past opposition to such a cut: voters always warm to a mea culpa).
– Re-affirm his predecessor’s statement that the Coalition totally rejects the Aboriginal industry’s presumptuous demand for a constitutionally imbedded ‘voice’ in the parliament; and add that the same goes for all the other nonsense in the so-called ‘Uluru Statement from the Heart’.
– Seek out a top quality businessman, with real media experience and a clear understanding of the ABC’s political bias, to appoint as its chairman.
– Announce that the government will not appoint a new Race Commissioner to the Human Rights Commission.
– Better still, announce that the government will, if re-elected, move to abolish the HRC entirely.
– Take every opportunity to push back against all manifestations of political correctness. (The more this enrages the intellectual elites, the more support Morrison will gain from the silent majority of Australians, fed up with it).
As to that other major matter, power prices, I believe our new ‘Minister for bringing power prices down’, Angus Taylor, will actually move to do so over the months ahead. So on that, let’s wait and see.
This election will not be won by the Liberals presenting themselves as similar to Labor but a bit less extreme, but by striking out in clear contrast.
Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free