Liberals must put fears aside and bring Abbott back

The idea that Tony Abbott cannot be squeezed into a pedestria­n Coalition line-up is laughable and instructive. Picture: Britta Campion

Rational arguments and factual analysis have become so old-­fashioned that right-of-centre politicians seem frightened by them. The side of politics that is supposed to eschew ideology in favour of pragmatism now cowers in the face of emotive and ideological arguments for fear of wearing a political backlash.

Earlier this week, I argued that relatively benign economic condit­ions, progress on fiscal repai­r, steady tax reductions and strong success on border protection mean the Coalition should be competitive at this year’s election — especially because federal elections are usually closely contested and Labor has opened itself up to attack with a high-risk agenda of tax increases, energy activism and border-protection tinkering.

Yet any sniff of campaigning success presupposes that the Coalit­ion may make the most of its opportunities. And Scott Morrison and his team seem almost inexplica­bly reluctant to do this.

The Prime Minister is taking mediocre, lame-duck cabinet ministers to the election rather than refreshing his team or recalling the country’s best political campaigner, Tony Abbott, to the frontline. If the campaign were a horse race there would be a steward’s inquiry.

If the Liberals wanted to maximise their chances, they would not hobble themselves in this way. There can be only two plausible explanations: either the government is still so riven by internal enmiti­es that Morrison fears the recall of Abbott would foment disconte­nt in his team, or he is fearful of the anti-conservative criticism that the former prime minister would inevitably draw from his opponents, the press galler­y and social media.

The idea that Abbott — clearly the most accomplished performer in the parliament when it comes to ministerial experience, campaigning success and policy advocacy — cannot be squeezed into a pedestria­n Coalition line-up is laughable and instructive. If the government is allowing its critics to dictate its actions then it could hardly be more foolish.

Yet this fear of the counter-attac­k — a distinguishing feature of so-called Liberal moderates — seems endemic in the Coalition. It seems too implausible to think anyone in government could believ­e they might win an unlikely and titanic electoral struggle without engaging in battle and drawing return fire. Yet look at the missed opportunity in energy.

Stores were forced to shut during the Melbourne blackouts.

When the Australian Energy Market Operator ordered electricity distributors to cut power to 200,000 Victorian households and premises last Friday, it was a manifestation of years of policy failure. This load-shedding followe­d extensive “demand managemen­t”, where AEMO paid high-quantity power users to shut down to reduce demand, and came despite the spot price for electricity ramping up for the secon­d day running to the maximum $14,500 per megawatt hour to suck every spark of available generation on to the grid.

The shambles was brought about by the long-term impact of the renewable energy target and other renewable policies forcing the closure of baseload coal-fired power generation in Victoria and South Australia, while also reducing opportunities for gas-fired generation. Just like the statewide blackout in SA in 2016, it was a predictable outcome from policies that have made the national electricit­y market more fragile and Victoria and SA more reliant on power from other states.

Despite this experience and numerous warnings, Bill Shorten and Labor are committed to a nation­al 50 per cent renewable energy target. Almost two years ago, I wrote in these pages that SA’s energy disaster would mig­rate east: “Similar chaos awaits Victoria as it pursues a 40 per cent renewable target and Queensland as it chases 50 per cent. All NEM states are already suffering price and insecurity consequences that will escalate dramatically if Labor’s 50 per cent national target is adopted.”

Subsequently, AEMO has warned about generation shortfalls hitting NSW as well, especiall­y if the Liddell coal-fired power station in the Hunter ­Valley closes as planned in three years. The pivotal issue that led to the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull last year was the backlash within government ranks against his plan for a bipartisan deal on clima­te and energy policies.

For all its public inconvenience and economic calamity, last week’s Victorian power crisis was manna from heaven for the Morriso­n government. Here was hard evidence to prove its claims against Shorten’s reckless energy policy. Here was the chance to point to blacked-out suburbs and plausibly claim they are the portent­s of more to come under a national renewable energy target of 50 per cent.

Yet the response from the governme­nt was muted, to say the least. Resources Minister Matt Canavan made some strong commen­ts and Energy Minister Angus Taylor bought into it a few days later. But where was the prime ministerial amplification? Where was the alarm being rung on the nation’s energy future? Where was the challenge to Shorte­n and Labor on how their renewable goal could avoid price and reliability dilemmas?

Victorian and federal Labor MPs and the green Left generally were more organised, with risible attempts to blame the fiasco on coal-fired plants that failed or were shut for maintenance. To zealots and partisan advocates, neither the 2017 closure of the massive Hazelwood generator that once supplied 25 per cent of the state’s electricity nor the ­feeble efforts of wind turbines on the day were significant factors.

If this was a chance for the Coal­ition to shoot fish in a barrel and highlight one of the central policy choices for this year’s election — between the government’s approach of consolidating power supplies and Labor’s plan to redouble its renewables push — why didn’t it take it? Could it be that Morrison and Josh Frydenberg feel compromised, as architects and advocates of Turnbull’s failed national energy guarantee?

Could it be that the Coalition fears the mindless taunts of “climat­e denier” that come its way on this issue, or pictures of the Prime Minister with a lump of coal in his hand, or questions about how it will meet its Paris commitments?

Such squeamishness must be playing a role. This is a major mistak­e. The Coalition must embrac­e this debate, even inflame it, to focus national attention on the choice to be made. Both major parties share the blame for the vandalism of our electricity ­system — that cannot be denied — so the government should focus on the future and how best to remediate the situation.

With annual global emissions growing by about double Australia’s total emissions, we can afford to get our energy house in order, safe in the knowledge that whatever we do will have no impact on the international project or the earth’s atmosphere. The nation went too hard, too early, on renewab­le energy and needs to consolidate to protect citizens, businesses and the economy.

No one should pretend these are easy arguments in an age where emotionalism and gesture politics run amok. But the choice is either to take them up or dis­appear in a fog of ambiguity.