Laura Tingle on why Labor can’t quit gas

Sam Hawley: We were meant to be quitting gas, but now apparently we’ll have it on tap until 2050 and beyond. So what on earth is the federal government up to, given it sold itself as climate-friendly at the last election? Today, ABC TV 7.30’s chief political correspondent, Laura Tingle, on Labor’s new gas policy and the outrage it’s created. I’m Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily.

Anthony Albanese, Prime Minister: Together, we can end the climate wars. Together, we can take advantage of the opportunity for Australia to be a renewable energy superpower.

Sam Hawley: Laura, the Albanese government, it was elected partly on the promise that it was going to take action on climate change. And Labor, it really made a point of difference between itself and the Coalition as it went into that election, didn’t it?

Laura Tingle: It did. And of course, one of the crucial things in the Morrison government’s arguments was about a gas-led recovery, Sam. You know, this idea which entrenched gas as part of our energy mix for the foreseeable future and which linked it to the creation of jobs and supporting industry.

Scott Morrison, fmr Prime Minister: Central to this agenda is getting access to our domestic gas supplies. We need to get the gas from under our feet. We’ve got to get the gas.

Laura Tingle: This was a sort of a crucial difference in the sort of rhetorical balance, shall we say, of Labor, which was very much focused on renewables. It talked about gas as something that, you know, you might need in the short term, but really was making a sort of a very big push on renewables.

Sam Hawley: And back then, of course, Chris Bowen, who’s now the climate change and energy minister, he was really deriding the Morrison government for its gas-led recovery plan.

Scott Morrison, fmr Prime Minister: Well, it’s a fraud. It’s a slogan. It’s not a policy. It’s simply a fraud.

Sam Hawley: They were attacking the Coalition over this.

Laura Tingle: They were. It’s one of those things, Sam, where, you know, the reality is that there wasn’t a huge policy difference between the two sides. There was a lack of enthusiasm, shall we say, on the Coalition side, a lack of really aggressive commitment to getting renewables going. But in terms of what Labor was actually committing to, it was still, you know, it was still a very pale shadow of its former self on climate. I mean, it did sort of sign up to international protocols and all those things. But, you know, the commitments to reduce greenhouse gases were still as far as somebody in the Greens camp or in the environmental camp were concerned, or even in the camp of economists who say, you know, we just have an economic interest in doing something. It wasn’t enough.

Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Laura, gas is now at the centre of Labor’s energy policy. Just tell me about this shift. What’s the new plan now?

Laura Tingle: Well, interesting you should ask, Sam. Speaking of rhetorical shifts, so the week before the budget, which seems like a very long time ago.

Sam Hawley: A week is a long time in politics, Laura.

Laura Tingle: Yeah. Madeleine King, the Resources Minister, announced this future gas strategy. And essentially the crucial bit of it was, was that she was saying that gas was going to be something that was going to be around for a really long time to 2050 and beyond. Now, I think this was the phrase that really sparked alarm amongst climate change advocates, because it sort of entrenched gas. It appeared to entrench gas as something that was going to be a staple of our policy mix for the foreseeable future, which was a real change of rhetoric.

Madeleine King, Resources Minister: Albanese Labor government has committed the country to a net zero emissions target by 2050. So what we know is that we will need different energy sources to get us along that pathway. So while we’re moving out of coal and driving up renewables, which is a really important part of this, those renewables need to be firmed by gas.

Laura Tingle: It’s been quite interesting in the last week, there was such a bad reaction to it that I think a lot of other ministers in the government have been quietly sort of walking away from the rhetoric, certainly in private and saying, look, we haven’t actually changed our position. It was just a change of emphasis. And we still basically renewables first. But I think it is true that the government did feel vulnerable, even though there are huge question marks over Peter Dutton’s nuclear policy as an alternative. They feel hugely vulnerable to suggestions that they are just relying on renewables and perceptions that that will leave us subject to blackouts.

Sam Hawley: But this new gas policy, it’s pretty similar to what the Coalition was proposing at the last election, isn’t it?

Laura Tingle: Well, exactly. The future gas and the gas-led recovery sound exceptionally similar. How much it actually affects what is happening on the ground is unclear. I think it certainly has been aimed at trying to reassure gas producers that they’re clear to go ahead. And that has really, I think, undermined the message of Labor that gas was just a transitory thing. It was probably something we needed for 2030, but would gradually wind down after that.

Sam Hawley: And as you mentioned, it’s left not an insignificant number of federal MPs pretty unhappy.

Laura Tingle: Absolutely. I mean, I think this is the first real mass breakout we’ve seen where you’ve got a lot of backbenchers sort of saying, look, I signed up to doing something serious. And, you know, I’m really, really unhappy about this. It’s not just environmentalists and crazy loony people who have been very unsettled by this. We had Rod Sims, the former head of the ACCC on our program, responding to this.

Rod Sims, The Superpower Institute: I think it damages our credibility internationally. It’s saying we’ll be developing and using fossil fuels, not just for 2050 and beyond. What we should be convincing our trading partners of is that we can be the trusted, energy intensive supplier of green exports.

Laura Tingle: Since then, of course, the government has announced a whole range of measures in the budget designed to encourage green hydrogen. So, you know, a week on, we have to look at the future gas strategy in the context of the budget’s decisions on green energy. It’s become a bit muddier, Sam.

Sam Hawley: And you mentioned the Greens. Adam Bant says really all that’s happened here is that Anthony Albanese has caved into pressure from the fossil fuels industry.

Laura Tingle: Yeah. And that’s certainly the way it’s seen as in a situation where Queensland and Western Australia are absolutely pivotal until the next election. There’s a really huge focus now on, you know, anything that just happens to be, you know, something that will go down a treat in Western Australia in particular. And this was very much the way this was seen when Madeleine King started talking about it.

Sam Hawley: Yeah. Right. Not so well in Victoria, as I understand it, given the Victorian Labor Party has actually opposed this. I would have thought, Laura, that would be pretty embarrassing for Anthony Albanese not to have the Victorian branch on side.

Laura Tingle: Well, sometimes a bit of opposition doesn’t necessarily hurt, Sam. Of course, Victoria has a blanket ban on further gas exploration or extraction. So it’s sort of not a surprise that they would take that position. So it’s really about sending a signal to those producers or resource companies who want to develop these massive gas fields in the Northwest. So I think you have to look at it through that prism. And of course, one of the things that critics of this say is, look, most of the gas that’s produced is actually the energy used in turning gas into LNG for export. And they’re pointing out that 80% of our gas is actually exported. So the idea that this is somehow going to help prop up our system is a bit dubious because that’s not what its main purpose is.

Sam Hawley: The messaging, though, can get confusing, I think, for consumers as well, Laura, because that, you know, title 2050 and beyond, this commitment to gas, you know, we’ve all got in our heads that we have to electrify our homes at some point, you know, we need to get rid of our gas ovens. And now we’ve got 2050 and beyond. So it’s confusing, isn’t it?

Laura Tingle: Oh, completely confusing. And I think some people sort of see this as Labor trying to have it both ways, I think, or have it several ways, you know, trying to sort of keep big gas producers on on side, trying to reassure people who are worried that renewables aren’t enough. And there’s quite a lot of them, not necessarily people who are climate change sceptics, but, you know, you’ve got businesses who can’t get enough access to gas, and they’re actually going out the door because they’re being charged, you know, exceptionally high rates for the gas they use, and they’re basically they can’t compete. So the suggestion that we’ve got gas for 2050 and beyond implies that that will improve local supply and therefore prices. But at the same time, you know, the government’s running around saying, oh, we’ve got all these projects underway to help, you know, boost renewable energy. And, you know, we’re very committed to all of this. So no wonder people are confused.

Sam Hawley: Yeah, of course. All right. Well, Laura, Labor says that the plan won’t interrupt efforts to reduce emissions to achieve net zero by 2050. Is that possible? I thought we had to get rid of gas. We had to quit gas.

Laura Tingle: Well, that was what I was thinking too, Sam. I mean, all of these numbers are always a little bit fluid and a lot of it, you know, we do need something to shore up the system, including to help make that transition to net zero networks and, you know, poles and wires, as they say, to actually make a system based on renewables work. But as we started the conversation, you know, we thought that this could sort of be at a position by 2030 where you’re looking at gas winding down. So the idea that you’re opening up new fields, even if it ultimately is used by, you know, countries like Korea and Japan more than it’s used by domestic markets, it’s very confusing.

Sam Hawley: Yeah. And what do you think, Laura, has it harmed Labor’s climate credibility?

Laura Tingle: I think it’s harmed them a lot and not just the backbench, but senior ministers will sort of privately concede that they think that the message was very ham-fisted in the way it was put out. And I think it does go back to this vulnerability that they feel to attacks about renewables, leaving us subject to blackouts. So it’s a classic case of trying to cover their political bottoms, but in the process, actually doing so in a way which has basically alienated a lot of voters who might otherwise vote Green.

Sam Hawley: Laura Tingle is the chief political correspondent for ABC TV’s 7.30. This episode was produced by Bridget Fitzgerald and Jess O’Callaghan. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I’m Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.