Sarah Gall is a political data scientist and membership secretary for the UK’s Conservative Friends of Australia. She previously headed up political and policy research for the Prime Minister of Australia.
Opposing views from varying political parties are a hallmark of a healthy democracy. The battle of ideas naturally helps formulate policies that lean towards the centre. Yet the divide can be so vast that in places that compromise seems a distant hope. Much like Brexit has polarised the UK, the energy debate is Australia’s titan divide.
The evolution of Australia’s energy policy has long been a thorn in the sides of both major parties and seemingly a poisoned chalice for any Prime Minister who has dared either take on the challenge of reform or stuck with maintaining the status quo.
Over the past decade, this policy area has emerged as a significant source of political controversy, impacting electoral outcomes and unveiling deep divisions both between and within political parties.
A notable turning point occurred during the 2010 election when Julia Gillard stated, “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”. The subsequent introduction of a carbon pricing mechanism under the government that she led was branded a broken promise by Tony Abbott, the then-opposition leader, who leveraged this issue through to his 2013 election victory.
In 2014, his government repealed the carbon tax. This decision, while resonating with certain segments of the electorate, underscored Abbott’s sceptical stance on climate change and preference for coal-fired power, exacerbating friction between the moderate and conservative wings of the Liberal Party.
These internal divisions, coupled with broader dissatisfaction from the general public – who were increasingly concerned about climate change – played a role in Abbott’s ousting as Prime Minister in 2015.
Upon assuming office, Malcolm Turnbull attempted to navigate the treacherous waters of energy policy by proposing the National Energy Guarantee (NEG). This aimed to reduce emissions while ensuring energy reliability. This initiative, however, ignited dissension among the conservative Coalition members.
In particular, the National Party – who represent rural and regional constituencies often dependent on traditional energy sectors like coal – expressed significant opposition to the NEG, fueling tensions within the Coalition.
This led to Turnbull eventually dropping the NEG as a policy and being ousted as Prime Minister in 2018. This episode marked the second occasion that Turnbull’s stance on energy policy directly contributed to his political demise. The first was in 2009, when he was Leader of the Opposition, and supported the Rudd government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
The energy debate continued to be a critical factor in the 2019 election campaign, revealing fractures within Labor over the proposed Adani Carmichael coal mine project in Queensland.
The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining, and Energy Union (CFMEU) backed the project, emphasising the importance of not alienating Labor’s traditional blue-collar voter base who rely on heavy industries for employment. Conversely, Labor members who represented inner-city constituencies opposed the mine due to environmental and climate change concerns.
Ultimately, the Queensland voters severely punished Labor for their ambiguous stance on Adani, leading to a significant loss of seats and reducing their primary vote to just 26.7 per cent – the lowest recorded vote since Federation.
In the lead-up to the 2022 election, Labor aimed to neutralise the energy debate by endorsing the approval of new coal mines that meet environmental standards, while simultaneously proposing ambitious targets for reducing emissions by 2030.
In contrast, the Coalition, under Scott Morrison, by now Prime Minister, pursued a technology-driven approach to achieving emissions reduction, without committing to phasing out coal or setting more aggressive short-term targets.
This stance paved the way for the rise of the “Teal independents”, who, backed by Simon Holmes, a billionaire, who advocated for stronger action on climate change and sustainable energy policies.
Their success in unseating several moderate inner-city Liberal members demonstrated the electorate’s growing demand for more robust policies on reducing emissions. This result reiterated the Coalition’s challenge of balancing the needs and views of its regional conservative base with those of its urban moderate supporters.
In response to this challenge, Peter Dutton, the opposition leader, has proposed introducing nuclear power into Australia’s energy grid. While this has not yet been formally adopted as the central pillar of the Coalition’s energy policy, it has reignited a long-standing debate within the country.
The nuclear debate in Australia has deep roots, tracing back to 1969. John Gorton, then Prime Minister, first proposed, and approved, the construction of a nuclear power plant at Jervis Bay. Gorton’s successor, however, opposed nuclear power and subsequently shelved the project, citing the need for financial restraint.
For decades, the discussion around nuclear power remained largely dormant, with significant legal and regulatory barriers established by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 during John Howard’s tenure. This Act, while not explicitly anti-nuclear, placed restrictions that have effectively limited the development of nuclear power facilities.
Despite these restrictions, both John Howard and Scott Morrison have articulated a pragmatic stance on nuclear energy in later years. Howard, especially after his premiership, advocated for a reconsideration of nuclear power, highlighting it as a potential means of leveraging Australia’s substantial uranium reserves for its energy production.
Similarly, Scott Morrison, while Prime Minister, suggested that the ban on nuclear power would be reconsidered if it could be demonstrated that nuclear energy would contribute to lowering electricity prices for Australian households. Morrison however, emphasized the need for any investment in nuclear technology to be economically justified.
Today, Peter Dutton’s exploration of nuclear power as part of the Coalition’s energy strategy faces significant hurdles. Public opinion remains largely sceptical, with lingering concerns over safety, waste management, the extensive timeframes for development, and the substantial start-up costs associated with deploying nuclear energy.
Conversely,Labor’s strategy focuses heavily on renewable resources, complemented by battery storage technology. This approach aims to leverage Australia’s abundant solar and wind resources to transition towards a more sustainable energy grid.
However, achieving a grid powered entirely by renewable energy faces its challenges, particularly regarding reliability. Concerns about the potential for blackouts during periods of peak demand or when solar and wind generation is low underscore the debate.
Moreover, sceptics highlight the reliance on technologies that have not yet been demonstrated to operate at the scale necessary to meet Australia’s comprehensive energy requirements.
While some smaller states and territories have made significant strides towards or achieved 100 per cent renewable energy generation for certain periods, the intermittency of these sources without adequate backup can lead to grid instability.
This concern emphasizes the Coalition’s argument for the necessity of a base load power source – a constant and reliable power source that can support the grid when renewable sources falter. Nuclear power, despite its challenges, is proposed as one solution to meet this need.
As the energy debate remains a pivotal concern for Australian voters, the imperative for both major parties to present viable and legitimate policy solutions has never been more critical.
With Peter Dutton considering nuclear power and Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, championing renewables, Australia stands at a crossroads. Both leaders must grapple with balancing emissions reduction against the need for reliable and economically feasible energy solutions, while simultaneously navigating the intricate political landscape these choices entail.
This ongoing saga highlights the complexities of transitioning to a sustainable energy future, underscoring the need for innovative solutions that can unite rather than divide.
The post Sarah Gall: Australia’s energy debate remains at a crossroads appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Sarah Gall
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.