Courtesy of The Australian.
The Greens and most teal MPs, in their ideological zeal, are prepared to let Australians suffer falling living standards by blocking new resource projects. And disadvantaged people needing government support would be among the hardest hit.
Infrastructure NSW chair Graham Bradley, an experienced company director, is the latest senior business leader to warn of the consequences of a hung parliament. Pushing up the cost of Australian resources projects and creating significant delays, he said, would cause Australia to miss out to rival suppliers. The cumulative impact on federal budgets and tax revenues would reduce the ability of the state to provide services. It was already a “national scandal”, as he said, that NSW and Victoria had effectively banned onshore drilling for gas. The world needed more gas and was going to need coal for a lot longer than was appreciated.
In one of the most important issues to gain traction in the election race so far, business leaders have taken up the cudgels against the election of a minority government. That is a realistic prospect, unfortunately, opinion polls show. But as Beach Energy managing director Brett Woods wrote this week, minority government could create “years of increased cost-of-living hikes, higher unemployment, severe energy shortages, and drive away much-needed investment in our country”.
Unlike major parties with comprehensive platforms attuned to the complexity of the economy, the Greens, independents and teals “often focus on narrow agendas without regard for the whole picture”. The Greens’ policy to block all new gas fields, for example, ignored the reality that there is no viable alternative for natural gas to provide a high-heat source for manufacturing a litany of everyday products we take for granted.
Opposition resources spokeswoman Susan McDonald put the issue front and centre on Thursday, pledging a Dutton government would demand gas producers commit to prioritising supply to the domestic market in return for approving a “bucket load” of new projects. It will back Woodside’s stalled $30bn North West Shelf extension project, on which Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has delayed a decision until late March. Senator McDonald also promised the Coalition would halve approval times and cut government funding to the Environmental Defenders Office.
Should voters deliver a hung parliament, the Greens will demand a stop to the North West Shelf project in exchange for supporting Labor. Aside from Wentworth MP Allegra Spender, who would consider working with a minority Coalition government, most teal MPs, especially Monique Ryan in Kooyong, are targeting Peter Dutton in their campaigning in a bid to keep their formerly safe Liberal seats. Their strategy suggests that most would side with Labor in the event of a minority government. Housing Minister Clare O’Neil will be the star attraction at an event hosted by Dr Ryan on Friday, two days after the independent labelled the Opposition Leader’s housing policy as “backward”. She has also criticised Mr Dutton’s proposed public service job cuts and his nuclear energy policy. Fellow teal Zoe Daniel, in nearby Goldstein, has also attacked the Liberals in multiple social media posts, accusing the party of “dirty tricks” and “lying” in advertising. Sydney teals Sophie Scamps (Mackellar) and Zali Steggall (Warringah) have also targeted Mr Dutton.
But on the issue of the North West Shelf extension, WA teal MP Kate Chaney appears to have been mugged by political reality. Her Curtin electorate includes some of the wealthiest resources investors in the nation. After describing the project as “unacceptable”, she has backflipped, saying she could be open to it if conditions were met. These factor in “the full social and environmental cost of carbon” and Aboriginal heritage impacts being assessed.
The Greens’ and teals’ attitude towards new resource developments, however, would create uncertainty and delays at best, and slammed doors at worst – what energy chiefs such as Woodside Energy’s Meg O’Neill have termed a “nightmare” and “quiet menace”.
The nation’s future investment was at risk if a government could not rule with authority. As former Reserve Bank board member Mark Barnaba says: “If there’s an outcome where good policy can’t be executed, and a situation arises where a government – due to having to negotiate with too many separate parties – can’t really implement sensible policy, then the biggest loser in that situation is the country itself.”
