Scott Morrison realises he cannot be just Malcolm Turnbull lite, and prepares to gamble:
Morrison — in a bid to chart a new course on social values, having this week declared that he would attempt to heal the divisions within the Liberal Party with a return to Menzian beliefs — will elevate religious protections and freedom of speech as key planks of a values-based Coalition social agenda.
In November, Mr Morrison led a group of conservative Coalition MPs demanding significant religious and parental protections be included in the gay marriage bill. Specifically, he sought amendments that included an “anti-detriment” shield for defenders of traditional marriage and strengthened parental rights, including what children were taught at school....
In the past, Mr Morrison has cited “conscience protections” as a key issue in the debate and has labelled the mockery of Christians as a form of discrimination that he would not tolerate.
All good, but risky if Morrison makes this seem as just protecting more conservative Christians (like himself).
It really has to be set in a broader (and blokier) context of getting the finger-waggers and professional offence-takers out of our face - just letting Australians speak more freely and make up their own minds who to hear and what to believe.
Why are so many Australians now too scared to speak their mind? Why these violent protests to stop people meeting and speaking? Why are ABC staff protesting against interviewing prominent Right-wingers like Steve Bannon? Why are police charging the victims of protests against conservative speakers? Why bans on Sky News? Why censorship of classic children's books? Why attempted bans by universities on Bettina Arndt speaking? Why did ACMA, the TV cop, damn as racist a frank discussion about saving Aboriginal children? Why does the Human Rights Commission go after even cartoonists?
We need a much wider attack so that more Australians realise that the free speech - and right to hear a free debate - involves them, too. It's not just the freedom of grim Christians.
I'm not criticising Morrison at all. Be clear about about that. I welcome him pledging himself to this course, but I saw how Tony Abbott came a cropper on it.
I also think that if the defence of free speech is as limited as this report suggests, then it will fail to brand Morrison as the fresh new change and the everyman Prime Minister. It will be used instead to brand him as the Pentecostal Christian.
But it Morrison really wants to make a cut-through statement it really will have to be on immigration or global warming. For one, both issues worry a lot more voters, and the media opposition will be so vicious (and ill-informed) that no voter will fail to notice, and there will be more scope to expose the policy idiocy that has left us with crowded cities, quarrelling tribes and sky-high electricity prices that pensioners cannot afford.
Yet Morrison, of course, is hamstrung on those two issues. He needs high immigration for the growth dividend in the Budget, and the Liberal Left will smash him if he, say, calls for Australia to leave the useless and expensive Paris Agreement on global warming. Julie Bishop is already out to put a spoke in his wheel.
But right now, Morrison's stand on global warming is incoherent, as Chris Kenny today made very clear:
Despite splitting the energy and environment portfolios and demanding Taylor drive down power prices, Morrison repeatedly and emphatically has committed the Coalition to meeting the Paris targets. At Albury he said the targets would be met easily, “with no impact on electricity prices at all”...
It is one thing for Morrison to remain in Paris but it is quite another to place great store on meeting the targets. Most other signatories have no meaningful targets to meet or are on track to miss them. Our Prime Minister ought to make clear that if something needs to give on electricity prices, reliability or emissions targets, it is the climate goals that will be disregarded.
Instead he is stuck arguing a contradictory line: that the Paris emissions reductions can be delivered at no cost but Labor’s higher targets will be costly. The truth is policies such as the renewable energy target that were designed and implemented to meet emissions reduction targets already have prompted the closure of large amounts of dispatchable generation in South Australia and Victoria, driving increases in prices and decreases in security of supply. Arguing the Paris targets have no price impact is just bunkum; it is possible from this point forward only if we ignore how we got to this point....
Outside electricity, Paris could play havoc with farming, transport and energy exports.
I suspect Morrison would love to do something like this, but is leader of a party now so hopelessly divided that it would rather destroy him than save the government - or the pensioners.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/morrison-dabbles-with-culture-war/news-story/c2d34c5d11ac6a4653726e3952e77528