Show your faces so mob can decide

Tony Abbott is one of the Monash Forum’s big-name members. Picture: Roger Wyman

This newspaper reported on Tuesday that the Monash Forum, named after the revered World War I general Sir John Monash, had 20 signed-up members and 10 more party room supporters. Were this true, it would represent a very sizeable group, too big and too noisy to be ignored by the Prime Minister. If their main aim is to build a $4 billion coal plant on the site of the old Hazelwood power station, they are doomed to failure. If their aim is to keep the lights on in the event of Liddell closing they may well be on the right track.

Firstly, though, its members need to come out of the closet and identify themselves. No doubt emboldened by the embrace of the big guns, Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce, we should see if they have the guts to own up to their signatures. Members like Craig Kelly are open about their views and have ­already been identified. Old right-wing stalwarts like Kevin Andrews and Eric Abetz, always up for a swipe against the man who dumped them from cabinet, Malcolm Turnbull, have already been publicly stamped with the Monash brand. Otherwise the public has no idea who belongs to this ginger group. If they wish to become a force in conservative politics, they will have to proclaim the righteousness of the Monash club’s manifesto. Sending out permanently disgruntled types just won’t cut it.

If you wish to speak only when your image is blacked out by thick, black curtains, your voice is not only muffled, it is worthless. MPs are not supposed to resemble whistleblowers from within the Australian Taxation Office. Their homes will not be raided by AFP and ATO officers at the crack of dawn for daring to speak an unspeakable truth. Therefore, those members of the Monash Forum who do not come forward can only be seen as those prepared to cowardly dodge the light of day and act like guerillas committing mayhem in the dead of night.

This is not to say I am against more investment in coal to help us through the interim period before renewables can take over. The real argument is about how long that interim period will turn out to be.

It is never easy to take issue with this newspaper’s Paul Kelly. He is brilliant, well-researched and usually writes without bias. Climate change and all that surrounds it does, however, demonstrate that even the best have blind spots. When he wrote this in Tuesday’s newspaper — “An electoral contest in which coal is pitted against renewables is a losing contest for the conservatives”, he may well be correct, but it is a red herring. Coal and renewables must be worked on together. Jay Weatherill tried to make renewables the only game in town and yet an opposition leader as weak as Stephen Marshall could beat him easily. If there is too much reliance on renewables then what happens when there is no coal backup or an insufficient one? The outages which lasted for three days at a time in Port Lincoln are never forgotten. Voters may have to wait but they carry their patience along with their fury for as long as it takes to come to another election. If there are federal Liberals looking at greater use of coal as a back-up, and they make their case for it effectively, it could place real pressure on Labor.

The argument is not only about reliability either.

It is about cost, and renewables add mightily to the electricity bill of every voter. Energy policy will be a feature at the next election. Let the mob decide. They usually work it out pretty well.