In Puccini’s famous opera, Tosca, there is a tenor aria titled Recondita Armonia which used to be sometimes translated as Strange Harmony of Contrasts. Even allowing for some artistic licence this seems a somewhat absurd proposition.

Nevertheless, some differences are, in the scheme of things, trivial and should easily be reconciled. Such inherent differences that are defined by race, gender, nationality and culture are rather superficial differences and should be easily accommodated. Unfortunately this is not the case and the politics of diversity largely seeks to magnify such differences rather than reconcile them. This has contributed to much of the malaise infecting modern society. When such beliefs morph into ideologies then facts are not allowed to get in the way!

One current example of this phenomenon of trying to reconcile irreconcilable differences is the current tension between the Albanese Government and the Reserve Bank.

In Economics 101 we learnt that increased spending causes increased demand and when the supply of goods and services remains relatively constant this inevitably results in higher prices, ie inflation. State and Federal Governments have all been spending wildly. They have been supporting wage increases (quite a few of which I think are justified to help our low earning cohort) and providing subsidies and tax relief, which they also attempt to justify on humanitarian grounds, but which unfortunately stimulate demand. Most of this of course is election bribery and adds to demand and whilst there are no concomitant productivity increases invariably contributes to rising inflation.

The Reserve Bank Governor said she was concerned the level of public spending was compromising the Bank’s attempts to rein in inflation. But the Labor Government would have none of this complaining that their efforts to reduce taxation and provide subsidies to off-set such things as rising electricity prices were having a positive effect in reducing the cost of living.

Add to this the fact that the Government’s revised charter for the Reserve Bank requires it not only to take action to curtail inflation but must temper its activities having due consideration for maintaining employment levels. As a result the Reserve Bank has refrained from raising interest rates in a way that would have more drastically reduced inflation because of the undue impact on unemployment. We are faced with a good approximation of Dr Doolittle’s famous push-me- pull-you animal where one half is pulling in one direction and the other half is pulling the opposite way.

Another area that seems to be fraught with irreconcilable differences is climate policy.

There are so many contradictory elements to climate policy I hardly know where to begin.

But if you start with the principle that Government policy should be about enhancing human welfare some obvious contradictions immediately emerge.

(Mind you, there are many conservationists who would not agree with this starting point. To them preserving Gaia is a religion that seems to prioritise the welfare of all sorts of exotic bugs and little known animals over humans.)

There are many contradictory facets to the Government’s climate policy.

To begin with it is underpinned by the notion, propagated by the Albanese Government, that Australia which only emits 1% of the world’s CO² can somehow have an impact on the world’s climate when the major emitters like China and India are doing virtually nothing to rein in their emissions.

I worked in power stations all my adult life, rising to become the inaugural CEO of Stanwell Corporation. Whilst, as some of my critics have maintained, my knowledge of generation is dated, I still know enough to point out some of the misinformation that the Federal Government is distributing to support its unseemly rush to renewable energy.

When Chris Bowen maintains that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy, he is only telling you half the story. Once a wind turbine or a solar array is installed then its marginal cost of generation is indeed zero because there are no fuel costs. But these renewable generating facilities attract other costs that the government avoids telling you about.

Unfortunately most renewable generating facilities are located remote from load centres and from the major transmission network. Consequently they often require extensive investments in powerlines and substations to connect them to the grid. These costs are passed on to the consumer by the distribution companies. (Bear in mind the distribution cost of electricity already greatly exceeds the generating cost on a per unit basis.)

In addition to this because renewable energy is by its nature intermittent, there must be back-up generation or energy storage (batteries, pumped storage Hydro) to fill the gap when the renewable generators are not generating or running at low levels of generation. Ideally this gap should be filled by gas generation which can run up quickly to fill this demand. The government’s reluctance to allow any new fossil-fuelled generation on line is exacerbating this problem.

And as Nobel Prize winning economist, Bjorn Lomborg points out “when we factor in the cost of just four hours of storage, wind and solar energy solutions become uncompetitive with fossil fuels.”

Other costs of renewables that are often hidden include the cost of disposal (remember they have relatively short lives compared with other generating assets), site remediation and the opportunity cost of loss production when they are located on prime agricultural land.

The reckless rush to renewables by the Albanese Government will inevitably continue to raise electricity prices. Albanese always preaches his ambition to restore Australia to a country that “makes things”.

Most manufacturing industries are both energy and labour intensive. He will never realise this ambition whilst pursuing energy policies that will inevitably increase electricity costs and industrial policies that reduce flexibility in the workplace and lift labour costs.

So here again we are confronted with some irreconcilable differences.

Finally let’s move on to the policy area that gives me most concern –the issue of multiculturalism.

Australian politicians often assert that Australia is the most successful multicultural nation in the world. In recent times it has been harder to make that case.

One of the reasons for this is the cultural decline of the West, including Australia. The political left have successfully denigrated our cultural foundations for decades. Despite the huge success of Western culture since the Renaissance, the left would have us believe that we should somehow feel guilty for that success.

This dilemma was highlighted in Douglas Murray’s fine book, The Strange Death of Europe, first published in 2017.

The left seek out every possible example of racism, misogyny, and exploitation that can be uncovered in European history and magnify it. They judge our ancestors by today’s more´s without consideration of the standards that prevailed in historical times.

To them, despite the undeniable benefits it brought to many, colonialism was an unmitigated disaster.

The left pursue the rights of minorities often at the expense of the majority. They bend over backwards to ensure that the causes of minorities like transgender activists, the LGBTI community, indigenous people and Palestinian sympathisers are promoted at whatever cost to the majority interest. Whereas once upon a time human rights were championed to ensure citizens were protected from the excesses of the state they now seem to have morphed into a process that seeks to ensure minorities are given more power than the majority. And this magnification of the rights of minorities has inevitably impacted on our ideal of multiculturalism.

In the past, Australians were rightly proud of their history, their culture and their place in the world. After the Second World War most of our migrants came from Western Europe. Whilst their cultures were somewhat different they tended to assimilate easily once they learnt the language. They were law-abiding, productive contributors to our society and they added cultural nuances that enhanced our own. Coming from largely Christian countries they contributed little to religious intolerance and respected our major institutions.

In later years we received more migrants from Asian countries including India, Malaysia, Ceylon and China. Even though many of these new arrivals were adherents to faiths other than Christianity they integrated well and were readily accepted by the tolerant Australian society.

But in the last few decades we have seen growing conflict in Muslim populations in the Middle East, Syria, Afghanistan and so on. This has generated a huge flow of Muslim refugees to Australia and even more so to Europe. Most of these refugees have been as benign as the Buddhists and Hindus and other non-Christian believers that have preceded them. But a small, yet significant cohort has not.

These displaced people have fled to countries that are far more tolerant than the societies they once inhabited. And unfortunately they play on our tolerance to try and reconstitute the very intolerance they have fled from.

Now of course the cohort I am referring to are the radical Islamists. Not only is the culture they are trying to force upon us radically different from our own traditional culture, their beliefs are antithetical to the West.

These Islamists do not respect our laws. They believe that people should live according to the dictates of Allah as laid down in the Quran and the Hadith. The Quran is the medieval text purportedly dictated to an illiterate seventh century camel herder, Muhammad, as the literal revealed truth. The Hadith, which was compiled some considerable time after his death, is a compendium of the sayings and practices attributed to Muhammad, Sharia Law, which guides the lives of fundamentalist Muslims, is derived from these sources.

In Arabic, Sharia literally means “the clear, well-trodden path to water”. Sharia acts as a code for living that all Muslims should adhere to, including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor. It aims to help Muslims understand how they should lead every aspect of their lives according to Allah’s wishes.

Sharia Law is a very illiberal set of principles. It is punitive and abhors women and homosexuals. It teaches that apostates should be killed. There is no path for adherents to investigate alternative belief systems. This is, of course, the sort of intellectual cowardice that we often confront in fundamentalist belief systems.

In Europe there are now enclaves that have been permitted to pursue Sharia Law. That runs counter to the Western ideal of liberalism and religious freedom.

Throughout the UK and continental Europe traditional Western values and traditions are under threat because of the growing encroachment of fundamentalist Islam. “Woke” governments have been afraid to challenge Islamist extremists. Radical Muslims carrying out acts of violence and terror are treated with kid gloves, whilst Christians and those protesting in support of more conservative concerns are vigorously prosecuted.

(Even as I write there is a report of an ISIS sympathiser stabbing three people to death in Germany at a festival celebrating diversity! Think about the incongruity of such an act!)

In Australia we have witnessed the same “two tier” policing.  After the Hamas October 7 atrocity was committed we had radical Muslims demonstrating in support of Hamas and celebrating the slaughter and rape of the 1200 Jews that were cowardly attacked. Police have taken virtually no action against these people. What’s more radical Islamist Imams have been publicly urging Muslims to eradicate the State of Israel in the most egregious way. And again this has resulted in virtually no response from the police.

Contrast this with the police response during Covid of arresting people for protesting against government policies now proven to be ineffective and committing minor violations of government edicts. Our liberal democracy is beginning to falter just when we need it most.

So what are the irreconcilable differences that have been uncovered by this fiasco?

Firstly it is undeniable that radical Islam cannot be reconciled with democracy.

Peter Dutton is absolutely correct to advocate a ban on providing visas for those attempting to flee Gaza until such time that such refugees can be appropriately vetted. Every refugee that enters Australia who supports Hamas is a threat to our democracy.

Secondly I believe it is also an irreconcilable difference when Labor attempts to portray support for Israel. Anthony Albanese has a long history of supporting Palestine over Israel. As a leftist student activist he supported Palestine and it is hard to believe that his underlying beliefs have changed since then. And sadly the Labor party with its concerns about retaining seats in Western Sydney with a large Muslim constituency seem quite willing to prejudice our democracy by pandering to the Muslim minority for base political ends, rather than fulfilling one of its most important duties – securing the safety of Australians.