Labor MPs condemn suggestion they adopt Coalition climate change policy

Extract from The Guardian

Labor party

Joel Fitzgibbon’s climate change ‘settlement’ is rejected but Labor will allow the government’s ‘big stick’ energy policy to pass

Katharine Murphy Political editor

@murpharoo

Mon 14 Oct 2019 20.15 AEDT Last modified on Mon 14 Oct 2019 20.16 AEDT

Shadow agriculture minister Joel Fitzgibbon prompted internal uproar when he suggested last week that Labor support the Coalition’s climate change targets. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Joel Fitzgibbon has copped a blast in the left and right caucus meetings for declaring Labor should adopt the Coalition’s Paris emissions reduction target rather than pursue ambitious cuts to carbon pollution.
The internal unrest came as the shadow cabinet was expected to sign off on Monday night on a shift in Labor’s attitude to the controversial “big stick” policy of the Morrison government.
Labor opposed the government’s policy in the last parliament to create a “big stick” power breaking up big energy companies if they engaged in price gouging. But it is now, assuming shadow cabinet and caucus approval, expected to allow the legislation to pass, having received assurances it will not be used as a backdoor means of privatising state-owned assets.

Fitzgibbon, the shadow resources minister, who suffered a significant swing against him in his coalmining seat in the Hunter Valley in the May election, used a speech to the Sydney Institute last week to argue the ALP should offer “a political and policy settlement” on climate policy “to make 28% the target by 2030”.
The unanticipated foray from the senior New South Wales rightwinger prompted internal uproar, and the shadow climate change minister, Mark Butler, promptly declared Labor would not adopt Tony Abbott’s suboptimal target.
“The government’s target, which was developed by Tony Abbott with no expert advice, is fundamentally inconsistent with the Paris agreement,” Butler told Guardian Australia. “It would lead to global warming of more than 3C and, for that reason, Labor cannot support that target”.
With parliament resuming on Monday after a spring break, the left and the right caucuses met separately in the evening ahead of Labor’s regular caucus gathering on Tuesday morning.
Guardian Australia understands that in the left caucus, more than 10 MPs spoke forcefully against Fitzgibbon’s intervention, including the senior frontbenchers Tanya Plibersek and Catherine King.
Butler, a South Australian leftwinger, and key Albanese backer, did not speak at the meeting but attended and received unanimous support for his position.
In the right caucus, Fitzgibbon also faced criticism from within his own group, with colleagues concerned that his contribution at the Sydney Institute had been unhelpful to both Labor and to the leader, Anthony Albanese.
While the majority of contributions during the right caucus discussion were sharply negative about the Fitzgibbon proposal, according to people present – with colleagues pointing out that not everybody in the faction represented a coalmining electorate – there was, however, in-principle support for having a debate about the climate policies Labor took to the 2019 election.

There was concern in the right that internal discussion about Labor’s climate policies before the last election had been largely restricted to the shadow cabinet rather than a more freewheeling conversation in caucus.
Fitzgibbon, according to people at the meeting, launched a robust defence of his position both on the policy substance and on the politics of climate change. He contended at the Sydney Institute that ambitious climate policies had cost Labor both leaders and elections, and told colleagues on Monday night that trying to front a position where emissions were reduced to zero by mid-century would be politically fraught.
Assuming an about face on the “big stick” is ticked by shadow cabinet on Monday night, that will hand the Morrison government a significant win. It was faced with the risk of amendments during parliamentary debate that would have split the Liberals and the Nationals.

The Centre Alliance was proposing to amend the legislation to impose a divestiture power across the economy, not just to the energy sector. While Nationals might have viewed that favourably, it would have prompted a revolt among Liberals already concerned that the proposal offends the pro-market principles of the government.