Speaker 1: From Schwartz Media. I'm Ashlin McGee. This is seven am.
Speaker 1: The members of the Federal Labor government have been pretty
Speaker 1: disciplined about not publicly criticizing party policy, so it raised
Speaker 1: a few eyebrows when MPs in inner city seats took
Speaker 1: aim at the government's Future Gas strategy. The plan pumps
Speaker 1: up gas as a vital part of the energy transition
Speaker 1: through to twenty fifty and beyond, which is at odds
Speaker 1: with moves to get households off gas as quickly as possible. Today,
Speaker 1: the Saturday Paper is Mike second on what's behind the
Speaker 1: gas plan and my little sanctioned descent might be part
Speaker 1: of a broader electoral strategy. It's Thursday, May twenty three,
Speaker 1: so Mike. Earlier this month Labor released what it's calling
Speaker 1: the Future Gas Strategy. Tell me a bit about the plan.
Speaker 2: Well, it came out the Thursday before the budget and
Speaker 2: it was released by the Resources Minister madal And King.
Speaker 2: It's one hundred and ten page document entitled the Future
Speaker 2: Gas Strategy. I have to say my initial thoughts were
Speaker 2: that this could have been written by Angus Taylor. I mean,
Speaker 2: it is very very pro gas could almost have been
Speaker 2: written by the industry itself actually, you know, more exploration,
Speaker 2: more production, And the key quote that got a lot
Speaker 2: of people agitated was that gas would continue to be
Speaker 2: vital to their transition through to twenty fifty and beyond.
Speaker 3: There has to be a discussion and an assessment of
Speaker 3: how all energy sources fit within that journey to net
Speaker 3: zero by twenty fifty. We know that cole is retiring,
Speaker 3: lowering emissions, renewables are growing, and we're investing in that
Speaker 3: our government.
Speaker 2: She also said that it would be crucial to one
Speaker 2: of the government's key economic reforms, the Future Made in
Speaker 2: Australia policy. It paid lip service to reaching net zero
Speaker 2: by twenty fifty, but keeping gas in the mix and
Speaker 2: affordable during that transition.
Speaker 3: But even so, we will need other energy sources to
Speaker 3: make sure that we keep the economy going, that we
Speaker 3: give consumers choice and access to affordable energy and heating.
Speaker 2: It also said that we would need new sources of
Speaker 2: gas supply to meet demand during the transition. It promised consumers'
Speaker 2: freedom of choice to continue using gas in their homes,
Speaker 2: something which is at odds with a lot of policies
Speaker 2: that various states are pursuing to try and get people
Speaker 2: off gas.
Speaker 3: They will need gas to power those operations until there
Speaker 3: are substitutes, and the usual gas strategy is encouraging of
Speaker 3: those substitutes.
Speaker 2: So it ran counter to a fair part of I
Speaker 2: guess you would call it the narrative, the labor narrative
Speaker 2: of dealing with climate change, because you know the use
Speaker 2: of gas to support transition remains very controversial. You won't
Speaker 2: be surprised to know that this was spectacularly an instantly
Speaker 2: unpopular with a lot of people outside the gas industry,
Speaker 2: particularly all the environment groups. But not only that, and
Speaker 2: this was more interesting in political terms, it actually sparked
Speaker 2: assent within Labour's own ranks.
Speaker 1: So tell me a bit more about that. Who's been speaking, Adam,
Speaker 1: what have they been saying.
Speaker 2: Well, the most notable and pointed was Josh Burns, who's
Speaker 2: a Labor backbencher from Victoria, and he appeared on R
Speaker 2: and Breakfast the next morning and his opening gambit was
Speaker 2: I didn't get into politics to be a support mechanism
Speaker 2: for the fossil fuel industry.
Speaker 4: When I got into Parliament, I was one of the
Speaker 4: youngest MP's in the House of Representatives. I'm still relatively
Speaker 4: young and I feel a sense of responsibility that I
Speaker 4: stand up for not only my generation and the generations
Speaker 4: after me and my daughter, that we do everything we
Speaker 4: can to try and transition our economy from higher missions
Speaker 4: fossil fuels to lower missions technology.
Speaker 2: And it wasn't just what he was saying publicly. Also
Speaker 2: suggested that he was going pretty hard in private. He said,
Speaker 2: I think the most important conversation are often done behind
Speaker 2: closed doors.
Speaker 4: My responsibility is to be a strong voice for McNamara
Speaker 4: in government, and I take that responsibility extremely seriously. I
Speaker 4: think I think everyone in government knows that both myself
Speaker 4: and my electorates wants stronger action on climate change.
Speaker 2: Victoria at a state level, has shown its determination to
Speaker 2: reduce the role of gas and the energy mix. In
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one, the state labor government actually saw the
Speaker 2: insertion of a ban on gas fracking into the state constitution.
Speaker 2: In January this year, the state government banned new gas
Speaker 2: connections for new homes.
Speaker 4: We speak to each other obviously in a we're colleagues,
Speaker 4: and because there's quite a few of.
Speaker 5: You, I mean, this is the biggest revolt I've seen
Speaker 5: since covering your government.
Speaker 4: Well, I would say a couple of points. One is
Speaker 4: that there are.
Speaker 2: Josh Burns electorate. McNamara is one of the most progressive
Speaker 2: in and already progressive state. So Josh Burns is probably
Speaker 2: more aware than any other Labor member that his electoral
Speaker 2: survival could depend on climate change and the support of
Speaker 2: voters who are very concerned about climate change. You know,
Speaker 2: the figures tell the story. I think at the last
Speaker 2: election he only won on preferences. He got less than
Speaker 2: thirty two percent of the first preference vote. The Greens
Speaker 2: candid got twenty nine point seven, so only a few
Speaker 2: points behind. You know, had just another two thousand of
Speaker 2: McNamara's you know, ninety seven thousand odd voters put a
Speaker 2: number one against the Greens candidate instead of Labor. He
Speaker 2: wouldn't be the member for McNamara today, so hence his
Speaker 2: great concern that he doesn't lose any more voters to
Speaker 2: the Greens.
Speaker 1: He's surely not the only voice feeling that way about
Speaker 1: the Greens, as anyone else within the party spoken out.
Speaker 1: Has it been a bigger division within the party over
Speaker 1: the gas statement.
Speaker 2: Yes, there certainly has, and you know he was I
Speaker 2: think he would say the strongest, But there have been
Speaker 2: a number of others seven or eight I've kind of
Speaker 2: lost count have made public statements. I gather there are
Speaker 2: quite a lot of others who are similarly displeased with
Speaker 2: Madeline King, but expressing in private.
Speaker 6: Six backbenches have told the ABC the government should be
Speaker 6: speeding up the transition away from fossil fuels.
Speaker 2: What's interesting about this is if you have a look
Speaker 2: at where their seats are, almost all of those speaking
Speaker 2: out come from electorates where the Greens vote could be decisive.
Speaker 2: You know, I mentioned Macnamara Burns seat. But let's take
Speaker 2: another example from a person who had a bit to say.
Speaker 2: That's another Labor back bench of Michelle and Ander Raja.
Speaker 6: One of those backbenches is Higgins MP, the Victorian seat
Speaker 6: of Higgins doctor Michelle Ananda Raja. Now, she said the
Speaker 6: announcement caught her by surprise. She said that she felt
Speaker 6: like she was blind sided by the announcement and.
Speaker 2: She's a first term member of Parliament and she said
Speaker 2: that there was a total lack of consultation on this.
Speaker 2: It's a similar story a couple of seats to the
Speaker 2: north in an electorate of Jagga Jagger. The member there
Speaker 2: Kate twaits Jagger.
Speaker 6: Now she says that her focus and the focus of
Speaker 6: the government has been on the transition to renewable energy,
Speaker 6: not prolonging fossil fuels. So certainly was some of the
Speaker 6: concerns raised by those back benches now.
Speaker 2: Them to cite just a couple more Jed Carney and
Speaker 2: Peter Khalil, a couple more Melbourne seats. So I guess
Speaker 2: the point is here the Greens are breathing down Labour's
Speaker 2: neck in a number of seats. All of these members
Speaker 2: that are speaking out, they would all be very well
Speaker 2: aware that a key appeal of the Greens to these
Speaker 2: inner city voters is based in substantial measure on the
Speaker 2: concerns some voters have that Labor is not moving fast
Speaker 2: enough to exit fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: So, Mike, with a number of Labor and PA speaking
Speaker 1: out like this, could this be a bit of a
Speaker 1: headache for the government.
Speaker 2: I mean, for a start, Labor has the strongest rules
Speaker 2: of any of the parties on maintaining the party line.
Speaker 2: So even the fact that we're getting this commentary from
Speaker 2: backbenches at all is unusual. Even more unusual, I might say,
Speaker 2: is the fact that Jed Carney was one of them
Speaker 2: because she's not a backbencher, she's a minister as well
Speaker 2: as a former president of the ACTU. But I think
Speaker 2: the bigger issue here is not so much the fact
Speaker 2: that people are speaking out as the political reality behind it,
Speaker 2: which is that on the gas issue in particular, Labor
Speaker 2: is trying to appeal to a couple of very different constituencies,
Speaker 2: you know, those in these progressive, mostly inner city electorates
Speaker 2: who are very concerned about climate change on the one hand,
Speaker 2: and then on the other hand, constituents in the big
Speaker 2: mining states like Western Australia and Queensland. I think it's
Speaker 2: also interesting that many of those that went public used
Speaker 2: similar and somewhat vague rhetoric about moving to renewables as
Speaker 2: soon as possible, you know, that sort of thing. They
Speaker 2: didn't actually challenge the idea that gas might be around
Speaker 2: to twenty fifty or beyond. Also interesting is the fact
Speaker 2: that they weren't slapped down by the leadership. Some people
Speaker 2: I spoke to suggested this and it was a nice
Speaker 2: phrase one used, sanctioned dissent, which is that the leadership
Speaker 2: knew that these MPs had to kick over the traces
Speaker 2: a little bit for the sake of their own future
Speaker 2: electoral survival, which of course ultimately means the survival of
Speaker 2: the government as well. I guess so, you know, I
Speaker 2: want to be unduly cynical here, but I get the
Speaker 2: impression that, as one labor source put it to me,
Speaker 2: there are quite a lot of people in the party
Speaker 2: who are genuinely and this is a direct quote, pissed
Speaker 2: off at King for needlessly undermining the party's narrative on
Speaker 2: energy policy.
Speaker 1: After the break. If it's causing internal headaches, what does
Speaker 1: the government get out of giving gas a future.
Speaker 2: Mike?
Speaker 1: It seems like the Greens are gearing up to fight
Speaker 1: labor over climate at the next federal election, which you know,
Speaker 1: no massive surprise there, but it seems like they might
Speaker 1: have a bit of new ammunition with this future gas strategy.
Speaker 1: So what are the Greens been saying?
Speaker 2: Well, you're absolutely right. Last week Adam band, the Greens leader,
Speaker 2: held a press conference. Whatever one might think of Adam
Speaker 2: Bant's political views, he's a pretty cunning politician. I think,
Speaker 2: probably the most cunning politician that the Greens have had
Speaker 2: leading them, and he straight up challenged the lay Brean
Speaker 2: peace he'd spoken out. He called them grand standards.
Speaker 5: This is a chance now to put your money where
Speaker 5: your mouth is and be on the right side of history.
Speaker 5: Stop approving you coal and gas mines. Come and vote
Speaker 5: with those of us in the Greens and on the
Speaker 5: cross bench who know the science, who want to stop
Speaker 5: seeing this climate crisis get worse. And if you don't,
Speaker 5: if they don't leave you, if your party doesn't let you,
Speaker 5: then quit your party, because it is crystal clear now.
Speaker 2: He also fed the narrative. I think that they had
Speaker 2: engaged in a bit of expedy and authorized descent to
Speaker 2: use that phrase again, you know, he said, wasn't it
Speaker 2: a coincidence that they all coined their lines and that
Speaker 2: no one had come down on them for doing it?
Speaker 5: Here I move that so much of standing in sessional
Speaker 5: orders be suspended as would prevent the Member from Melbourne
Speaker 5: from moving the following motion.
Speaker 2: Adam mad the next day in Parliament moved a motion
Speaker 2: noting that the world was on track for two point
Speaker 2: five degrees of warming, and then he called for the
Speaker 2: House to condemn the future gas strategy.
Speaker 5: It is vital that today we debate now and call
Speaker 5: on the government to stop approving new coal and gas mines,
Speaker 5: because what is crystal clear now after the announcement we've
Speaker 5: seen over the last few days, is that Labor wants
Speaker 5: coal and gas past twenty fifty. Past twenty fifty.
Speaker 2: You know, it was just parliamentary theater, of course, but
Speaker 2: nonetheless it was very embarrassing in that it was a
Speaker 2: reminder that the Labor government really isn't all that different
Speaker 2: from its conservative predecessors in its willingness to open up
Speaker 2: more fossil fuel production. And so anyway, went to a
Speaker 2: vote and guess what, no Labor members voted for that
Speaker 2: Greens motion. So in spite of the fact that they're
Speaker 2: speaking out, they're not taking the sort of action that
Speaker 2: the Greens would like and presumably that a lot of
Speaker 2: the constituents of their electorates would like to see.
Speaker 1: Mike Labour's obviously given the Greens this kind of AMMO.
Speaker 1: But just play that out for me. What's in it
Speaker 1: for Labor, Like, what do they have to gain from
Speaker 1: this future gas strategy?
Speaker 2: Well, let's have a look at the politics and understand
Speaker 2: what Madeline King's doing here. The first thing to notice
Speaker 2: that the future gas strategy it doesn't involve any new
Speaker 2: legislation or even really a change of policy, which is
Speaker 2: funny because it means we're having this big announcement in
Speaker 2: the first place. Seems like starting a fight for no reason,
Speaker 2: and a couple of the unhappy people put it to
Speaker 2: me in exactly those terms. So you know, maybe you
Speaker 2: could say, being charitable about it, that Madeline King was
Speaker 2: trying to make the point that gas is an important bridge,
Speaker 2: a transition fuel on the path to renewables, and that
Speaker 2: she just communicated that clumsily. Possibly being a West Australian
Speaker 2: from one of the big fossil fuel states, she didn't
Speaker 2: fully appreciate the sensitivities on this issue elsewhere in the country.
Speaker 2: You know, Western Australia is a big resource state, Conservatives
Speaker 2: tend to dominate. In fact, the probably the biggest surprise
Speaker 2: at the last election, the twenty twenty two election, was
Speaker 2: that Labour managed to gain so many seats in WA.
Speaker 2: If it wants to attain government, and remember it only
Speaker 2: holds government by a couple of seats, it will have
Speaker 2: to hold onto those gains in the West and it
Speaker 2: will have to pick up some in Queensland, the other
Speaker 2: big resource state. So you know, the future gas strategy
Speaker 2: has divided the country in a way and divided labor
Speaker 2: along the way. It's toxic in the inner city seats
Speaker 2: in the Eastern States, but out in the provinces people
Speaker 2: are much more likely to support King's argument that fossil
Speaker 2: fuel resources are vitally important. And somewhere in the middle
Speaker 2: you have a lot of probably outer suburban seats where
Speaker 2: people are concerned about the climate but kind of like
Speaker 2: cooking on gas.
Speaker 1: So, Mike, that's the political rationale for what's going on here.
Speaker 1: But what about the economic argument that gas is vital
Speaker 1: to transitioning to net zero, Because that's I mean, that's
Speaker 1: pretty much the policy position we're at now, does it
Speaker 1: stuck up?
Speaker 2: Well, you're entirely right. It was the policy position before
Speaker 2: Madeline King put out her paper, and nothing's changed after
Speaker 2: the paper, which is what flummoxes me. I can't quite
Speaker 2: understand that necessity for it at all. The argument is
Speaker 2: that Australia needs access to reasonably priced gas to make
Speaker 2: the transition. But the truth here is that Australia has
Speaker 2: lots of gas, but we export eighty percent of the gas,
Speaker 2: mostly to countries in Asia. China actually burns more Australian
Speaker 2: gas than Australias and now the solution that's being proposed
Speaker 2: is to dig up more gas. King lauded the fact
Speaker 2: that last financial year LNG liquefied natural gas exports were
Speaker 2: Australia's second largest export by value, and that they earned
Speaker 2: something like ninety two billion dollars and employed some twenty
Speaker 2: thousand people. Well, my first point would be twenty thousand
Speaker 2: people isn't really that many In the grand scheme of things.
Speaker 2: Woolworth's employs ten times as many people as the gas industry.
Speaker 2: It is not very labor intensive. Meanwhile, China, Japan, South
Speaker 2: Korea are burning far more Australian gas than Australia does,
Speaker 2: and global climate change continues apace. So if Madeline King
Speaker 2: is troubled by any of this, by the climate change
Speaker 2: consequences of mining lots more gas, by the fact that
Speaker 2: it is not want the economic bourn that it's portrayed
Speaker 2: to be, it certainly isn't apparent in her glowing portrayal
Speaker 2: of Australia's gas driven future in the strategy that she
Speaker 2: put out a week or so back.
Speaker 1: Mike, thanks so much for your time today.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: We'll have more after this break. Also in the news today,
Speaker 1: several Australians are still in hospital after a Singapore Airlines
Speaker 1: flight experienced major turbulence and was forced to land at
Speaker 1: Bangkok Airport. A seventy three year old British Man died
Speaker 1: and dozens more were injured, some seriously. Fifty six Australians
Speaker 1: were among the two hundred and eleven passengers and eighteen
Speaker 1: crew on board the flight. There's a debate over whether
Speaker 1: climate change is contributing to more instances of severe turbulence.
Speaker 1: One recent study found turbulence in jetstreams may double or
Speaker 1: trouble over the coming decades. And Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor
Speaker 1: has unveiled the opposition's plans to bring down the cost
Speaker 1: of housing, putting immigration at the center of the coalition's policy.
Speaker 1: During a speech at the National Press Club, Taylor promised
Speaker 1: a coalition government would temporarily ban foreign investors and temporary
Speaker 1: residents from buying existing homes. He also said that reduced
Speaker 1: permanent migration by twenty five percent for two years and
Speaker 1: cast out on economic modelings suggesting that could lead to
Speaker 1: a recession. That's all from the seven AM team for today.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. We'll see you again tomorrow.