The L-NP's mealy-mouthed new vote-buying 'commitment' to the environment

After years of climate change debate the Coalition is finally speaking up for the environment, sort of ─ when they can see a vote or two in it.

Currently, there are plans afoot for several offshore wind farms around Australia as we transition to renewable energy.

It all began a few years back, when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister and Barnaby Joyce was Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Nationals. There was a Senate Inquiry into the matter, which discussed plans for offshore wind developments in the Illawarra and Newcastle areas (amongst other regions).

The Inquiry recommended legal infrastructure be set in place. Three bills were drafted by the Coalition Government in 2021, introduced to Parliament and passed by the House and Senate with the support of the Greens and Labor.

Just to reiterate, Barnaby Joyce knew about the Hunter Valley (Newcastle) Wind Farm in 2021 and supported it from its earliest days of development under the Government he co-led with Morrison.

Fast forward to 2023 and Barnaby Joyce, and now Peter Dutton, are both vehemently against the Newcastle Offshore Wind Farm they had no concerns with two years prior.

In 2021, both were cabinet ministers, when they had the platform of the House of Representatives to debate the Bill they introduced. But at the time, they chose not to speakon it.

So what prompted this change of heart? Put simply: votes.

Dutton and Joyce are seeking to fan the flames of discontent and capitalise on local community concerns from those in this marginal seat who object to the proposed offshore wind farm.

From the Sydney Morning Herald (27 October 2023):

'“I’ve become the doyen of the protest movement,” Joyce tells me. “All these people who, in another life, wouldn’t vote for me now want me to turn up at their protests” in Labor-held seats, “and I will do that for them”.'

At a protest meeting on the Nelson Bay Foreshore on October 7, Joyce rallied the crowd to take their protest against the “cult” of renewable energy to Canberra. Joyce also attempted to twist the narrative to make it about individual freedoms and “rights”:

Joyce reportedly told the crowd there:

“We have these people who just believe they have more rights over our life than we have over our own lives. Cults don’t listen to logic, they just do whatever they like.”

Joyce, ever the “retail politician”, is adopting the tried and true strategy of “divide and conquer” he has often adopted to pit city folk against their country cousins. Similarly, Joyce’s “No” position on the Referendum for a Voice To Parliament was formed early in the piece and, unlike his position on offshore wind farms in the Hunter, he has maintained his original position on the matter.

Dutton, following Joyce’s lead, travelled to the Hunter to meet with locals opposed to the offshore wind farm, telling media it is a “national disgrace”. Dutton didn’t tell the media it was Coalition policy or that he had never objected to it publicly during its creation and implementation. Now, trailing in the polls, Dutton will seize upon any opportunity to curry favour among protesting locals in a marginal seat.

Spearheading protests is a local recreational fishing group who are lobbying all and sundry to support their opposition to the offshore wind farm. They are supported by some locals, the Australian Fishing Trade Association (AFTA) and, recently by the National Farmers Federation (NFF).

Ironically, offshore wind farms often act as artificial reefs which attract biodiversity and many species of fish, which benefits recreational fishing.

Chair of AFTA, former Liberal Member for Paterson Bob Baldwin, outlines “the issues” that underpin AFTA’s reasons for opposing the project on their website.

Baldwin argues the wind turbines will be both huge and noisy. Yet they will still somehow be unable to be seen by cargo ships navigating the globe, including the hundreds of other offshore wind farms, both existing and under construction. Baldwin argues it will be an eyesore, even though it will be 20 kilometres out to sea and unable to be seen from shore. Included in Baldwin’s litany of “issues” is the suggestion it poses a national security risk by providing a “near-perfect hiding space for foreign crewed or uncrewed submarines”.

Dutton and Joyce have echoed these “issues” when discussing “the renewables push in the bush” with Chris Kenny, agreeing with Kenny’s statement that renewables are “the battle zone of our times”. This, of course, also neatly serves Joyce’s “divide and conquer” political strategy.

While Dutton and Joyce fight the wind farm battle zones on the open seas, former Resources Minister Keith Pitt is fighting the battle on land.

In a similar illustration of political gymnastics, Pitt positions himself as a champion environmental causes. These are, in fact, precisely the same environmental causes he disregarded or diminished as a federal minister and that never stopped him approving projects far more harmful to the environment.

Pitt − the same politician who approved a $175 million Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) loan to Queensland’s Olive Downs coking coal mine − has since had an epiphany about koala habitats. Now he now telling the conservative media the Clarke Creek project was “killing koalas”.

As Sophie Vorrath wrote in Renew Economy:

‘The koala killer claims have been given legs by Nationals MP Keith Pitt, who despite his role as former federal minister for resources, has done the conservative media rounds to share his shock over “disturbing new revelations” on plans for koala habitats affected by wind farm projects.’

Dutton, Joyce and Pitt are all part of the Coalition that pledged to Net Zero by 2050. Joyce, however, has since backflipped and spoken out against his own party’s policy of net zero emissions by 2050, calling it “utterly untenable”, suggesting yet another rift emerging within the Coalition.

This eternal debating, obfuscation and political gymnastics on renewables by the Coalition continues to frustrate Australia’s renewable energy economy. It also appears to be a cynical vote-harvesting exercise rather than an authoritative argument stemming from any sincere convictions.