[Theme Music Starts]

ASHLYNNE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ashlynne McGhee. This is 7am.

The members of this Federal Labor government have been pretty disciplined about not publicly criticising party policy.

So it raised a few eyebrows when MPs in inner city seats took aim at the government’s Future Gas Strategy.

The plan pumps up gas as a vital part of the energy transition through to 2050 and beyond, which is at odds with moves to get households off gas as quickly as possible.

Today, The Saturday Paper’s Mike Seccombe, on what’s behind the gas plan and why a little “sanctioned dissent” might be part of a broader electoral strategy.

It’s Thursday May 23.

[Theme Music Ends]

ASHLYNNE:

So Mike. Earlier this month, Labor released what it's calling the Future Gas Strategy. Tell me a bit about the plan.

MIKE:

Well, it came out the Thursday before the budget. And it was released by the resources minister, Madeleine King. It's a 110 page document entitled The Future Gas Strategy. I have to say, my initial thoughts were that this could have been written by Angus Taylor. I mean, it is very, very pro gas. It could almost have been written by the industry itself, actually; you know, more exploration, more production, and the key quote that got a lot of people agitated was that ‘gas would continue to be vital to the transition through to 2050 and beyond’.

Audio excerpt – Madeleine King:

“There has to be a discussion and assessment of how all energy sources fit within that journey to net zero by 2050. We know that coal is retiring, lowering emissions, we know renewables are growing, and we're investing in that.”

MIKE:

She also said that it would be crucial to one of the government's key economic reforms, the future Made in Australia policy. It paid lip service to reaching net zero by 2050, but keeping gas in the mix and affordable during that transition.

Audio excerpt – Madeleine King:

“But even so, we will need other energy sources to make sure that we keep the economy going, that we give consumers choice and access to affordable energy and heating.”

MIKE:

It also said that we would need new sources of gas supply to meet demand during the transition. It promised consumers freedom of choice to continue using gas in their homes. Something which is at odds with a lot of policies that various states are pursuing to try and get people off gas.

Audio excerpt – Madeleine King:

“They will need gas to power those operations until they're off substitutes and the Future Gas Strategy is encouraging of those substitutes.”

MIKE:

So it ran counter to a fair part of, I guess you would call it the narrative, the Labor narrative of dealing with climate change, because, you know, the use of gas to support that transition remains very controversial.

You won't be surprised to know that this was spectacularly and instantly unpopular with a lot of people outside the gas industry, particularly all the environment groups. But not only that, and this was more interesting in political terms, it actually sparked dissent within Labor's own ranks.

ASHLYNNE:

So tell me a bit more about that. Who's been speaking out and what have they been saying?

MIKE:

Well, the most notable and pointed was, was Josh Burns, who's a Labor backbencher, from Victoria. And he appeared on RN Breakfast the next morning. And his opening gambit was “I didn't get into politics to be a support mechanism for the fossil fuel industry.”

Audio excerpt – Josh Burns:

“When I got into Parliament, I was one of the youngest MPs in the House of Representatives. I'm still relatively young, and I feel a sense of responsibility that I stand up for my generation and the generations after me and my daughter, that we do everything we can to try and transition our economy from high emissions fossil fuels to low emissions technology.”

MIKE:

It wasn't just what he was saying publicly, he also suggested that he was going pretty hard in private, he said “I think the most important conversations are often done behind closed doors”

Audio excerpt – Josh Burns:

“My responsibility is to be a strong voice for Macnamara in government. And, I take that responsibility extremely seriously, I think everyone in government knows that both myself and my electorate want stronger action on climate change.”

MIKE:

Victoria, at a state level, has shown its determination to reduce the role of gas in the energy mix in 2021. The state Labor government actually saw the insertion of a ban on gas fracking into the state constitution. In January this year, the state government banned new gas connections for new homes.

Audio excerpt – Josh Burns:

“We speak to each other, obviously, you know, we're colleagues, and…”

Audio excerpt – News Reporter (ABC):

“Because there’s quite a few of you, I mean, this is the biggest revolt I've seen, since covering your government.”

Audio excerpt – Josh Burns:

“Well, I would say a couple of points…”

MIKE:

Josh Burns’ electorate Macnamara is one of the most progressive in an already progressive state. So, Josh Burns is probably more aware than, you know, any other Labor member. That his electoral survival could depend on climate change and the support of voters who are very concerned about climate change.

You know, the figures tell the story. I think at the last election he only won on preferences. He got less than 32% of the first preference vote. The Greens candidate 29.7. So only a few points behind, you know, had just another 2000 of Macnamara's. You know, 97,000-odd voters put a number one against the Greens candidate instead of Labor. He wouldn't be the member for McNamara today. So, you know, hence his great concern that he doesn't lose any more voters to the Greens.

ASHLYNNE:

He's surely not the only voice feeling that way about the Greens. Is anyone else within the party spoken out? Is it being a bigger division within the party over this gas statement?

MIKE:

Yes, there certainly has. And you know, he was, I think you would say the strongest. But there have been a number of others, 7 or 8. I've kind of lost count, have made public statements. I gather there are quite a lot of others who are similarly displeased with Madeleine King, but expressing it privately.

Audio excerpt – News Reporter (ABC):

“Six backbenchers have told the ABC the government should be speeding up the transition away from fossil fuels…”

MIKE:

What's interesting about this is if you have a look at where their seats are, almost all of those speaking out come from electorates where the Greens vote could be decisive. You know, I mentioned Macnamara, Burn’s seat. But let's take another example from a person who had a bit to say that's another Labor backbencher, Michelle Ananda-Rajah.

Audio excerpt – News Reporter (ABC):

“One of those backbenchers is Higgins MP, the Victorian seat of Higgins Doctor Michelle Ananda-Rajah. Now, she said the announcement caught her by surprise. She said that she felt like she was blindsided by the announcement.”

MIKE:

She's a first term member of Parliament, and she said that there was a total lack of consultation on this. It's a similar story a couple of seats to the north in an electorate of Jagajaga; the member there, Kate Thwaites.

Audio excerpt – News Reporter (ABC):

“Now, she says that her focus and the focus of the government has been on the transition to renewable energy, not prolonging fossil fuels. So certainly that was some of the concerns raised by those backbenchers.”

MIKE:

To cite just a couple more, Jed Carney and Peter Khalil, a couple more Melbourne seats. So I guess the point is here, The Greens are breathing down Labor's neck in a number of seats.

All of these members that are speaking out, they would all be very well aware that a key appeal of the Greens to these inner city voters is based in substantial measure on the concerns some voters have, that Labor is not moving fast enough to exit fossil fuels.

ASHLYNNE:

So, Mike, with a number of Labor MPs speaking out like these, could this be a bit of a headache for the government?

MIKE:

I mean, first up, Labor has the strongest rules of any of the parties on maintaining the party line. So even the fact that we're getting this commentary from backbenchers at all is unusual. Even more unusual, I might say, is the fact that Jed Carney was one of them because she's not a backbencher, she's a minister as well as a former president of the ACTU.

But I think the bigger issue here is not so much the fact that people are speaking out as the political reality behind it, which is that on the gas issue in particular, Labor is trying to appeal to a couple of very different constituencies. You know, those in these progressive, mostly inner city electorates who are very concerned about climate change on the one hand. And then on the other hand, constituents in the big mining states like Western Australia and Queensland.

I think it's also interesting that many of those that went public used similar and somewhat vague rhetoric about moving to renewables as soon as possible. You know, that sort of thing. They didn't actually challenge the idea that gas might be around to 2050 or beyond.

Also interesting is the fact that they weren't slapped down by the leadership. Some people I spoke to suggested this was and it was a nice phrase. One used sanction dissent, which is that the leadership knew that these MPs had to, you know, kick over the traces a little bit for the sake of their own future electoral survival, which, of course, ultimately means the survival of the government as well, I guess.

So, you know, I don't want to be unduly cynical here. But I get the impression that, as one Labor source put it to me, there are quite a lot of people in the party who are genuinely - and this is a direct quote - “pissed off” at King for needlessly undermining the party's narrative on energy policy.

ASHLYNNE:

After the break.. If it’s causing internal headaches, what does the government get out of giving gas a future?

[Advertisement]

ASHLYNNE:

Mike, it seems like the Greens are gearing up to fight Labor over climate at the next federal election, which, you know, no massive surprise there, but it seems like they might have a bit of new ammunition with this Future Gas Strategy. So what are the Greens been saying?

MIKE:

Well, you're absolutely right. Last week, Adam Bandt, the Greens leader, held a press conference. What if one might think of Adam Bandt? You know, political views. He's a pretty cunning politician. I think probably the most cunning politician that the Greens have had leading them. And he straight up challenged the Labor MPs had spoken out, he called them grandstanders.

Audio excerpt – Adam Bandt:

“This is a chance now to put your money where your mouth is and be on the right side of history. Stop approving new coal and gas mines. Come and vote with those of us in the Greens and on the crossbench who know the science, who want to stop saying this climate crisis get worse. And if you don't, if they don't let you, if your party doesn't let you, then quit your party…”

MIKE:

He also fed the narrative, I think, that they had engaged in a bit of expedient, authorised dissent, to use that phrase again. You know, he said, wasn't it a coincidence that they all coordinated their lines and that no one had come down on them for doing it?

Audio excerpt – Adam Bandt:

“Speaker that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Melbourne from moving the following motion…”

MIKE:

Adam Bandt, the next day in Parliament, moved a motion noting that the world was on track for 2.5 degrees of warming, and then he called for the House to condemn the Future Gas Strategy.

Audio excerpt – Adam Bandt:

“It is vital that today we debate now and call on the government to stop approving new coal and gas mines, because what is crystal clear now, after the announcements we've seen over the last few days, is that Labor wants coal and gas past 2050! Past 2050!”

MIKE:

You know, it was just parliamentary theatre, of course, but nonetheless, it was very embarrassing in that it was a reminder that the Labor government really isn't all that different from its conservative predecessors in its willingness to open up more fossil fuel production.

And so, anyway, it went to a vote. And guess what? No Labor members voted for that Green's motion. So in spite of the fact that they're speaking out, they're not taking the sort of action that the Greens would like, and presumably that a lot of the constituents of their electorates would like to see.

ASHLYNNE:

Mike, Labor's obviously given the Greens these kind of ammo. But just play that out for me. What's in it for Labor? Like what do they have to gain from this Future Gas Strategy?

MIKE:

Well, let's have a look at the politics and understand what Madeleine King's doing here. The first thing to note is that the Future Gas Strategy. It doesn't involve any new legislation or even really a change of policy, which is funny because it means we're having this big announcement in the first place. It seems like starting a fight for no reason, and a couple of the unhappy people put it to me in exactly those terms.

So, you know, maybe you could say I'm being charitable about it, that Madeleine King was trying to make the point that gas is an important bridge, a transition fuel on the path to renewables, and that she just communicated that clumsily, possibly being a West Australian, i.e. from one of the big fossil fuel states. She didn't fully appreciate the sensitivities on this issue elsewhere in the country. You know, Western Australia is a big resource state. Conservatives tend to dominate.

In fact, the probably the biggest surprise at the last election, the 2022 election, was that Labor managed to gain so many seats in WA, if it wants to retain government. And remember, it only holds government by a couple of seats, it will have to hold on to those gains in the West and it will have to pick up some in Queensland, the other big resource states.

So, you know, the Future Gas Strategy has divided the country in a way and, and divided Labor along the way. It's toxic in the inner city seats in the eastern states, but out in the provinces, people are much more likely to support King's argument that fossil fuel resources are vitally important. And somewhere in the middle, you have a lot of probably out of suburban seats where people are concerned about the climate, but kind of like cooking on gas.

ASHLYNNE:

So, Mike, that's the political rationale for what's going on here. But what about the economic argument that gas is vital to transitioning to net zero? Because that's I mean, that's pretty much the policy position we're at now. Does it stack up?

MIKE:

Well, you're entirely right. It was the policy position before Madeleine King put out her paper, and nothing's changed after the paper, which is what flummoxed me. I can't quite understand the necessity for it at all. The argument is that Australia needs access to reasonably priced gas to make the transition. But the truth here is that Australia has lots of gas, but we export 80% of the gas, mostly to countries in Asia. China actually burns more Australian gas than Australia does, and now the solution that's being proposed is to dig up more gas.

King lauded the fact that last financial year, LNG, liquefied natural gas exports were Australia's second largest export by value, and that they owned something like $92 billion and employed some 20,000 people. Well, my first point would be 20,000 people isn't really that many in the grand scheme of things. Woolworths employs ten times as many people as the gas industry. It is not very labour intensive.

Meanwhile, China, Japan, South Korea are burning far more Australian gas than Australia does. And global climate change continues apace. So if Madeleine King is troubled by any of this, by the climate change consequences of mining lots more gas, by the fact that it is not the economic boon that it's portrayed to be. It certainly isn't apparent in her, you know, glowing portrayal of Australia's gas driven future in the strategy that she put out a week or so back.

ASHLYNNE:

Mike, thanks so much for your time today.

MIKE:

Thank you.

ASHLYNNE:

We’ll have more after this break.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

ASHLYNNE:

Also in the news today…

Several Australians are still in hospital after a Singapore airlines flight experienced major turbulence and was forced to land at Bangkok airport.

A 73-year-old British man died… and dozens more were injured, some seriously.

Fifty-six Australians were among the 211 passengers and 18 crew on board the flight.

There’s a debate over whether climate change is contributing to more instances of severe turbulence - one recent study found turbulence in jetstreams may double or triple over the coming decades.

And..

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor has unveiled the opposition’s plans to bring down the cost of housing, putting immigration at the centre of the Coalition’s policy during a speech at the national press club.

Taylor promised a Coalition government would temporarily ban foreign investors and temporary residents from buying existing homes.

He also said they’d reduce permanent migration by 25% for two years…and cast doubt on economic modelling suggesting that would lead to a recession.

That’s all from the 7am team today. Thanks for listening, we’ll see you again tomorrow.

[Theme Music Ends]