The storms that will chase Dutton and Albanese to election day

As Alfred approached, Australia’s Treasurer Jim Chalmers, battened down at home, like just about everyone else in south-east Queensland. But he also got on the phone to the chief executives of the big insurance companies.

He sought assurances that they were prepared to process insurance claims speedily once the cyclone hit. Along the way, the insurance chiefs made a striking point.

Illustration by Simon LetchCredit:

They told Chalmers that they were expecting Alfred to be the biggest natural disaster in their lifetimes, as measured by the number of people affected: something around 4.5 million.

The insurers know that it’ll be very costly for them to have to pay out on policies. But they’re not too troubled. Because they’re confident of government backup thanks to an obscure arrangement called Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation, a federal agency that provides reinsurance to the insurers in the case of two types of events – terrorist attacks and cyclones and related flooding. It was a Coalition creation.

But does the Coalition itself have any backup? While climate change has been losing salience with voters in the last few years, Alfred seems likely to raise voter concern anew.

Certainly, the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-20 did. No leader ever will repeat Scott Morrison’s brilliant tactic of leaving the country for a Hawaiian holiday in the midst of a disaster. But while that inflamed the political debate, the fires themselves had the effect of elevating public concern about climate change.

The first cyclone to make landfall in South East Queensland in 51 years appears set to have the same effect. Asked on Friday whether climate change had intensified Alfred, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese replied: “Australia has always had natural disasters ... So you can’t say this event is just because of climate change. What you can say is that climate change is having an impact on our weather patterns ... The world’s hottest years have been increasing from year to year. Every January, it’s reported. Last year was hotter. All of the hottest years have been in the last decade.”

Albanese would be quite happy to see climate change find more traction because it has been a winning issue for Labor politically; it’s traditional Labor territory. And Albanese plans to campaign hard against the Coalition’s energy plan – to build a nationalised nuclear power system.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese addresses the media during a visit to the National Situation Room for an update on Cyclone Alfred on Friday.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

But Labor only wins this argument if it frames the debate as one about climate change; if it’s framed as a debate about energy prices, the Coalition likely wins. This is all to do with perceived “brand” strengths.

Labor is seen to be more genuinely concerned about climate and environment. The Coalition is still scarred by its climate-sceptic years under Tony “climate change is crap” Abbott and Barnaby “$100 lamb roasts” Joyce.

The energy transition in Australia is not proceeding smoothly, but it is proceeding. The share of renewables in Australia’s total electricity consumption was 17 per cent in 2017. In 2023, it reached 39.4 per cent. In the last quarter of last year it hit a new high of 46 per cent, approaching half the total. And, for the first time, coal’s share fell below 50 per cent, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator.

What does this mean for the government’s target of cutting carbon emissions by 43 per cent by 2030? It’s pretty much on track, according to the government’s Climate Change Department estimates from late last year, which projects that Australia’s emissions will be 42.6 per cent lower.

Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan has been a strong talking point for the Coalition.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Yet Labor’s winning political hand on climate is not as strong as these figures suggest. Partly that’s because of rising community resistance to big wind projects. Even some pro-renewables “teal” candidates are baulking at endorsing big new wind installations.

Partly because of Labor’s approvals for new coal and gas mines, the Greens pounce to attack the government’s sincerity.

Above all, it’s because power prices have risen so much. The price of wholesale electricity bounded an extraordinary 83 per cent in the last quarter of 2024, compared to the corresponding period a year earlier, according to AEMO. That’ll hurt any government’s credibility.

And it’s partly because Labor’s credibility on almost everything has slumped, along with its overall standing in the electorate. When Albanese was elected, Labor was seen as being better than the Coalition on almost every major area of policy. Today, Labor is seen as better than the Coalition in just two of 18 different policy areas – Indigenous affairs and welfare, according to the Resolve Political Monitor poll.

The two major parties are seen as equally good in one other field – healthcare. This is a traditional Labor strength and one it’s confident of winning back in the election campaign to come. In fact, Albanese aims to make it the dominant theme of the Labor campaign.

On climate change and the environment, Labor is now marginally behind the Coalition in voter perceptions of competence, by 5 points in the Resolve polling. Labor believes it can win on this issue if voter concerns are roused by events, meaning Tropical Cyclone Alfred.

On energy – including renewables and nuclear energy – Labor is more substantially behind, by 13 percentage points. Dutton’s nuclear energy plan has been a strong talking point for the Coalition. It’s bold and new, and it’s commanded a lot of attention.

It’s been instrumental in internal party management. It’s given the Coalition’s MPs and senators a unifying plan to advocate, instead of spending three years bickering with each other over whether climate change is crap, and whether to build a new fleet of coal-fired power plants.

The nuclear plan is less useful as a practical policy for solving Australia’s emissions and energy problems. Yes, nuclear plants would be zero emissions. But the timing, for starters, makes the policy irrelevant to the next decade’s needs.

The Coalition plan doesn’t envisage any nuclear power plants operating until 2035 at the earliest. And that assumes all goes smoothly in a plan to be entirely funded by the Australian taxpayer. It also presupposes that plants could be built in states that have shown no interest in lifting their nuclear bans.

If Alfred does indeed start a debate about climate change, the Liberals could win the argument if they harness anger at high electricity prices; but they’re in trouble if the debate revolves around climate change and urgent action to cut emissions.

Alfred isn’t the only cyclone approaching Australia’s coastline. The other is what the prime minister likes to call “the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War”.

This is a furious twister of forces combining Donald Trump’s destruction of the US-led world order with Russian designs on Europe and Chinese Communist Party ambitions to dominate just about everything.

Albanese is trying hard to wish this one away. He may be in the National Situation Room to deal with Alfred, but he’s distinctly uninterested in talking about the national situation that’s threatening Australian security. He wants a domestic election campaign and is unready for an election fought, in part, on national security.

Trump last week said that “the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States”. After he cut off all assistance to Ukraine, European leaders have concluded that he’s serious about cutting all of Europe adrift. They’ve decided that NATO is a dead letter.

Germany’s incoming chancellor Friedrich Merz has declared the need to make Germany “independent” of the US. Britain last week brought forward an increase in defence spending.

France’s Emmanuel Macron has offered Europe the protection of its nuclear “umbrella” on the assumption that the US umbrella is no longer reliable. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has declared “a watershed moment for Europe”. She’s drafted a plan to step up collective defence spending by €800 billion over four years.

In Australia, as the Chinese navy task group completes its circumnavigation of Australia, Dutton has kept open the option of pledging an increase in Australian defence spending. Intelligently, he took this position before the inevitable call from the Trump administration to do exactly that.

But Albanese? He’s resolute in claiming that he’s “stabilised” Beijing, that he’s done enough to increase defence spending from its current 2 per cent of GDP to his promised 2.4 per cent over a decade, and in dismissing Trump administration calls for Australia to do more in its own defence.

This leaves Labor exposed politically and Australia exposed strategically. Even the co-author of Albanese’s own defence strategic review, Angus Houston, has called for increasing defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP.

Which is it, prime minister? The most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War or a terrific time to declare “mission accomplished” while we wait a decade for US nuclear submarines?

Twin cyclones of climate change and hostile forces are approaching. It’s not an either/or choice. Leadership demands confronting both.

Peter Hartcher is political editor.