Why Dutton’s energy switch may help Albanese keep Labor’s lights on

For years, a favourite conservative talking point has been the imminent danger, should the madness of renewables be permitted to take over the country, of the lights going out. It’s a great phrase, carrying both its literal meaning and the larger, metaphorical suggestion of society crumbling.

Political tragics might be reminded of that brilliant, brutal 1992 headline in Rupert Murdoch’s UK paper The Sun: “If Kinnock Wins Today, Will The Last Person in Britain Please Turn Out The Lights?” (Kinnock lost.)

Illustration by Jim PavlidisCredit:

So in one sense it was jarring, last month, to hear NSW Premier Chris Minns – from Labor – use the line in much the same way conservatives have used it. Eraring, one of the country’s largest coal-fired power stations, needed to stay open for another couple of years, Minns said. Otherwise, the lights might go out. Unsurprisingly, conservatives took both Minns’ decision and his soundbite (which he had used before) as confirming their suspicions: renewables were a foolish gamble we would do best to abandon.

In fact, Minns’ argument had quite a different spin on it, that tells us quite a bit about where the energy transition in this country is up to. Yes, this was about making sure the lights didn’t go out, he said – because if the lights went out the public would lose faith in the transition to renewables. In other words, that transition was well and truly under way – and given that concrete fact, it was the job of government to smooth the path, both substantively and politically.

Interestingly, Anthony Albanese made a similar argument last week, when questioned about Peter Dutton’s decision not to announce emissions targets for 2030 before the election. Albanese didn’t use the phrase “lights going out”, but he might as well have. Three times he pointed out that Dutton’s promised nuclear reactors wouldn’t open until 2040 – and in the meantime, he said, old coal-fired power stations were closing while Dutton wouldn’t explain how he would “ensure that the energy grid remains functioning”. Hard to keep the lights on without a functioning energy grid.

For years, climate scientists have been telling us that time is of the essence; Peter Dutton is now essentially saying he disagrees.Credit: Louie Douvis, Getty

Dutton’s announcement last week was inevitable. Once nuclear was the plan (or “plan”), with its long-range timeframe, emissions cuts would obviously be delayed until later. But his confirmation was still a hugely significant moment. It re-opens the climate wars, for the simple reason that time matters: acting now is far more useful than acting later. For years, climate scientists have been telling us that time is of the essence; Dutton is now essentially saying he disagrees. This might not be denying the existence of climate change – but it is still denying the science.

Politically, Albanese’s rhetoric is just as significant a shift. Not long ago, the conservative side of this argument could present itself as pragmatic and hard-nosed; on the other side lay the idealistic fairyland of a greener world. And for a long time, that presentation had some punch to it because arguments for action always depended on the ability to imagine some far-off future: either apocalyptic (climate change will kill us all) or utopian (renewables will turbocharge our economy and provide jobs for all). It is part of why the argument for action has often felt moral and abstract, the argument against rooted in the everyday.

Albanese’s case last week suggests the ground may have moved. With coal-fired stations like Eraring (and before that Liddell) shutting or threatening to shut, and plenty of debate about exactly who is investing in what type of technology, there is a sense of having entered choppy waters.

The transition to renewables has been going on for some time, of course; but until recently it could often feel more hypothetical than actual. Now it is messy – with compromises and false steps. And, perhaps ironically, that messiness confirms the transition is under way, and allows Labor to make the argument for action in terms related to immediate problems voters might worry about – the need to keep the lights on.

You got a sense of this shift away from moral abstraction to pragmatism, too, in the response of the teal independent MPs to Dutton’s announcement. Monique Ryan, talking on the ABC’s 7.30, led by talking about it as “an act of extraordinary irresponsibility in terms of his economic management”, going on to talk about business groups, and coal and gas companies “asking for certainty”. Allegra Spender, talking to this masthead, said, “This isn’t just a disaster for the environment, this is an economic disaster”.

On Friday, the Australian Electoral Commission announced new draft boundaries for NSW. North Sydney, held by a teal, is to be abolished. This is a blow to the teals, but arguably to the Coalition, too, which can’t win the seat back. In addition, Wentworth, held by Spender, has likely become even less Liberal. With two of the seats off the table, the pressure on Dutton to chase teal seats arguably falls – giving him more freedom to bash Labor on climate.

In this, he obviously benefits from the fact Labor is in power when voters care more about cost of living than anything else. But incumbency cuts both ways. Albanese’s ability to ward off Dutton’s attack will be tied to voters’ understanding that the situation on renewables and energy has shifted – and the sense that this has something to do with Labor being in power. If that is the case, then Dutton’s climate policies could easily go from reassuring to risky: representing an interruption to a transition already in process.

As Labor prepares for the election, probably next year, you are likely to see shades of this argument everywhere. Today, Albanese meets with Chinese Premier Li Qiang. This is significant in itself. Politically, though, it is not really about China. Two years into Albanese’s first term, it carries the same message as Albanese’s argument about keeping the lights on by continuing the transition to renewables: that important shifts are underway and should not be tampered with before we have reached safe ground. This is not so far from the campaign he ran in 2022: “safe change”.

Then, voters needed to be persuaded of the “safe” bit. In 2025, Albanese’s battle is likely to be more about the “change”: convincing voters that it is really happening, and significant enough to deserve the name.

Sean Kelly is author of The Game: A Portrait of Scott Morrison, a regular columnist and a former adviser to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.