THE RIGHT PATH TO A LABOR VICTORY

At the May 2019 federal election, Labor MP The Hon Joel Fitzgibbon only narrowly won his supposedly blue-ribbon Labor seat of Hunter in NSW. His experience has led him to argue that Labor’s push for more rapid green energy targets have led to a loss of voters in working class electorates like the Hunter Valley coal mining areas and in seats around mining in northern Queensland. In November 2020, Fitzgibbon resigned from the opposition front bench and he continued to argue that Labor needed to put “labour” back into its policy focus. On Wednesday, 16 December 2020, Joel Fitzgibbon addressed The Sydney Institute via a YouTube broadcast. His speech was followed by a discussion with Sydney Institute executive director Gerard Henderson.

THE RIGHT PATH TO A LABOR VICTORY

 JOEL FITZGIBBON

Fourteen months have passed since I last addressed The Sydney Institute.  Back then, we could not have imagined the enormity of the challenges ahead of us – bushfires, a pandemic and the worst economic downturn in our lifetimes.

In the pre-emergency media environment, my October 2019 speech attracted more than a small amount of publicity. I’m hopeful Gerard thought that was a good thing. The media did not focus on the eight lessons I suggested Labor needed to take from the 2019 election. It did not cover my analysis of, and criticisms, of Scott Morrison.

Nor was there any coverage of my warning, that both the increasingly inward-looking posture of many countries around the world, and Scott Morrison’s Trump-like dalliance with the notion of a departure from the settled global order, were a threat to our economy and our security.

But, given the inexplicable potency of the climate change issue, the media’s narrowcasting of my speech was hardly surprising. Nor, I must admit, was it disappointing. Not for me anyway. What was a little surprising was the political Left’s disproportionately critical response to my speech; a reaction best described as “shrill, ideological, elitist, out-of-touch, and irrational”.

Let me remind you what they were responding to.  This is, word-for-word, what I said of the government’s climate change positioning in October last year:

The Prime Minister has largely avoided scrutiny and accountability on this subject because all the focus has been on Labor’s more ambitious targets.

But what would be the outcome if Labor offered a political and policy settlement to make 28 per cent the target by 2030? The focus would then be all about actual outcomes, and the government would finally be held to account and forced to act.

A political settlement would also restore investment confidence and for the first time in six years, we could have some downward pressure on energy prices.

Based on recent history, 28 per cent would be a meaningful achievement, certainly a better outcome than the one Labor’s last climate policy is now achieving. That is lesson 6: you can’t achieve much if you are perpetually in Opposition. As Gough Whitlam once said; the impotent are pure.

Many of the attacks on me in response to the question I posed, were quite personal. You’d swear I’d asked not a rational question, but rather I’d advocated a return to the steam engine. Or, worse, a doubling of the tax imposed on chardonnay.

All of this only made me more certain I was on the right track and, today, I feel well placed to claim I was right about target-setting, and they were wrong. The public debate this last 14 months should have been entirely focused on Scott Morrison’s target and his failure to meet it.

In any case, subject to the timing of the next election, the Morrison Government will be required to submit a new medium-term target next year. It makes you wonder what all the fuss over 26-28 per cent was about.

Today I build on the thoughts I shared with you last year. I consider medium-term targets to be of limited utility. Medium-term targets are a bit like weight-loss goals, useful but not mandatory. They provide no guarantee of success, as so many of us know.

Certainly, medium-term targets should not be set by opposition parties. From the opposition benches, politicians have no capacity to determine what rate of achievement might be possible, without doing harm to our economy and local jobs. But the Paris Agreement Malcolm Turnbull signed us up to does require Australia to set a medium-term target for each period. Therefore, the government of the day must.

But it should be a commitment guided by departmental and agency advice and one made on behalf of the Australian government and the Australian people, not one by any one political party.

Once set, Australia’s target should remain our target for all of the commitment period, regardless of any change of government. That means that on winning government, a successful political party should not change the medium-term target prior to the end of the commitment period.

This proposal would provide continuity and certainty for those who invest and create jobs. It could also put downward pressure on energy prices and take the heat out of the climate change debate.

While it would be difficult to legislate for a guaranteed continuity on what grounds could either of the major parties reject, such as a political settlement. Ultimately, it could become accepted as a common-sense parliamentary convention. It is of course possible that a government elected early in a commitment period, could find itself back on the opposition benches before the end of that period. To that prospect I say, tough luck.

A new government renewing the medium-term target at the end of a commitment period would be expected to follow the same expert departmental and agency advice as did the previous government.

Throughout the COVID-19 threat, a bi-partisan view emerged about the need to stick like glue to the expert health advice. If climate change is the existential threat many argue, why would we not take the same approach on greenhouse gas reduction policy?

For the new convention to enjoy the confidence of the electorate, more transparency will be required in the delivery of advice, and indeed, the processes for determining the medium-term goal. Ideally, a war-time cabinet model could be embraced to put both major parties in the room when the target is set.

Our medium-term target should not be the subject of a political bidding war in which those involved put their own political ambitions ahead of the national interest.

The target, of course, would become a floor, a minimum goal. If a government chooses to aim higher, that’s a matter for its leadership. But it would be for them to explain to the electorate why the expert advice and guidance is being departed from.

It’s time to end the climate wars and the damage they are doing to our international standing, our economy and, indeed, our natural environment.

I heard Labor’s Climate Change spokesman, Mark Butler, claim last week that on Scott Morrison’s current policy trajectory, Australia would achieve net zero emissions in 146 years’ time. Not 140 years, not 145 years, but exactly 146 years.

For the punters, this claim is no more believable than Scott Morrison’s claim he is on track to meet his current medium-term target. And it’s no more believable than anything the Greens have to say on the issue, or the National Party for that matter.

This is the problem with the climate change debate, no one is being honest with the Australian people. That’s because honesty would come at the cost of perceived political advantage. I use the word “perceived” advisedly, but “delusional” may be more accurate.

For each of the main combatants, meaningfully responding to the adverse impacts of a changing climate runs second to political opportunity. Where would the Greens be if climate change ceased to be an issue? What impact would it have on their capacity to raise funds?

Scott Morrison certainly doesn’t want an end to the climate wars, they’ve helped the Coalition win the last three elections. For that reason alone, Labor should commit to whatever medium-term targets Scott Morrison commits the Australian people to. We should also re-commit to net zero emissions by 2050 and promise a Labor government to accelerating the pace of the innovation needed to achieve the mid-century goal.

Investing in research, development, and innovation, and encouraging commercialisation is a very Labor thing to do, and Labor governments have proven themselves good at it. Promoting innovation takes more effort and thinking than does simply implementing a carbon tax, but the technology path will deliver greater benefits to the economy and offer more reward, both in outcome and political terms. It also offers greater certainty and security for working families.

Carbon taxes – or carbon constraints to use the less scary language – are a twentieth century solution to a twenty-first century challenge. Carbon constraints may have been the right public policy response in 2001, and for the decade thereafter, but investors long ago gave up waiting for parliaments to act and to act without retreat, as Canberra did in 2013.

Over the course of the last decade, large-scale solar and wind farms have become a feature on regional landscapes everywhere. Australians have taken to roof-top solar like ducks to water. More and more motorists are moving to electric and hybrid cars and the latest anti-pollution systems are further reducing heavy vehicle emissions, both on-road and off-road.

Our farmers have been reducing their carbon footprint by embracing new production methods, as have our oil and gas producers, our miners, and our manufacturers.Our farmers have been reducing their carbon footprint by embracing new production methods, as have our oil and gas producers, our miners, and our manufacturers.

Last week the Department released the latest National Greenhouse Gas inventory results. They tell us that, in the year to June 2020, the emissions intensity of the Australian economy was at its lowest level in thirty years, 64.7 per cent lower than in 1990. It also told us our per capita emissions are down 44.7 per cent over the same period. Almost half.

We could no doubt do better on climate change, and we should. But Australia is not performing so inadequately to justify the obsessive madness some bring to the discussion.

Australians care about our natural environment. They know how important it is to both our economy and our security. But their top priorities are their own financial security, and a safe environment for both them and their families. In this post-COVID period, never has that been more true.

The priorities of working families must also be Labor’s priorities. Eighteen months on from Labor’s 2019 election loss, the Curtin Research Centre’s Nick Dyenfurth and the AWU’s Misha Zelinsky have put to paper their views on the future direction of the Labor Party.

They invited several Labor parliamentarians and respected Party members to do the same.  Each of them was drawn from the Party’s Right faction. All of them made valuable contributions. Many, in their own way, spoke of the historic lead role the Party’s Right has played in policy direction and electoral success. Most found fault with our recent narrative and policy approach. Each of them offered ideas about how we can do better. No one defended the status quo.

Senator Marielle Smith wrote about the importance of families and the need to ensure they are left in no doubt that Labor stands with them and their aspirations. Michael Easson wrote about the drift of people of faith and the need to once again embrace them, and to reassure people of all faiths that their right to adhere to, and be guided by, their religious convictions is supported and respected by the Labor Party.

Shoppies Union boss Gerard Dwyer rightly argued that trade unions remain an important part of our social fabric and that collective action remains an important tool in achieving and maintaining some of Labor’s key objectives, including equality of opportunity, the right to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and the right to return home safely from the workplace each day.

Speaking on behalf of the communities of Northern Australia – and I would argue for all regional communities – Townsville Mayor Jenny Hill sent my admiration of her even higher with a passionate appeal for more than the usual lip-service from governments for regional development, opportunity and disadvantage. I make a passing reference here to the important contribution of Senator Raff Ciccone who wrote about immigration and the importance of regional dispersal.

But while the competition was tough, the essay that grabbed me most was that of Senator Anthony Chisholm. Chis provides a frank and depressing overview of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party’s recent dismal performances in Queensland and reminds us that we can’t win government without the Sunshine State’s regional seats. Most important of all, Anthony Chisholm reminded us that you can only give effect to good policy from the government benches. Of the opportunity to do good things for Queensland he said, “To do it, we need to win elections – and that means taking the people with us”.

Winning federal elections isn’t easy. Labor Members know this only too well, having won a majority of House of Representatives seats just once in the last 27 years. Labor is not the natural party of government at the national level. History tells us that we win only when the electorate tires of the other mob and we don’t look too scary. At the 2019 election, we seemed determined to look as scary as we could possibly be.

We need to read and learn from the various contributions in Nick Dyrenfurth’s Write Stuff. Labor can progress an agenda full of positive change consistent with Labor’s values, while also reassuring the electorate that we’ll put personal safety, the health of the economy, and their financial security first.

We must leave voters in no doubt that we believe in rewarding hard work and in backing aspiration. Just as much as we believe in making sure no one need be left behind. And we must be louder and prouder in our support for those who don the hi-vis each day to earn the export income we need to pay for the imports we are so fond of.

I said in my speech here last year: “I can’t pinpoint exactly when it happened, but somewhere along the way we stopped talking to our blue-collar base”.

Astute judges of political attitudes who worked the Queanbeyan polling booths at the Eden-Monaro by-election 6 months ago went home with no doubt that support amongst our traditional base is yet to be restored. There they encountered voters in hi-vis clothing and steel-capped boots turning up with LNP and Shooters & Fishers votes already in hand.

In his forward to the Write Stuff, former Labor Senator Stephen Loosely stated the obvious when he wrote: “To fail to recognise the significance of regional and rural Australia, especially in the outlying states of Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia is to languish in opposition in perpetuity.”

In demographic terms, Queanbeyan is the equivalent of parts of Western Sydney, the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland. We won’t win back our traditional base from the Senate and the House of Representatives dispatch boxes.

Our most senior MPs and Senators need to get on their bikes. They must visit our coal mines, gas projects, manufacturing plants, maintenance sheds and the like, to tell the workforce that they should be proud of what they do because we sure are.

We have a lot of work to do yet before we can claim we’ve put the labour back into the Labor Party.

AFTER HIS SPEECH FOR THE SYDNEY INSTITUTE, ON WEDNESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2020, THE WAS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE HON JOEL FITZGIBBON AND SYDNEY INSTITUTE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GERARD HENDERSON

Gerard Henderson: Well, Joel Fitzgibbon, thanks for that. It was a very good follow up to what you said here about 14 months ago, which turned out to be quite prophetic. Although, at the time, some of your colleagues thought it was quite pathetic. So, to summarise, what’s the right path for Labor to get to victory?

Joel Fitzgibbon: When I use the word “right”, I’m talking about the right wing of the Labor Party. If you have a look at this historically, the right has been a force for good within the party and a force for success. What’s happened to the Labor Party now, for right or for wrong, depending on your perspective, is that while the right wing still dominates the caucus with a fairly comfortable margin, there are many right wingers that now represent quite progressive electorates. Which is pushing a creep further to the left.

It is probably more accurate to say the caucus is not dominated by the left or the right but by the progressives. In other words, there are enough progressives in the right who, when combined with the left, control caucus. This is not on every issue, obviously, but it is a cultural force. Add to that is the fact that New South Wales is the only party branch still controlled by the right. Labor just had a good win in Queensland, while Mark McGowan, he’s no lefty, is very strong in WA. So, it’s not necessarily an absolute problem, but it poses challenges for the party.

I also think that as I suppose a consequence of that, the party has drifted both to the left and away from its traditional base. As I made clear in my address, Labor parties at the federal level don’t win government very often. In fact, we’ve only won government from opposition three times since the Second World War and only when we when we built broad coalitions. So we certainly can’t win an election with a collection of progressives, whether they be inner city Sydney, or Melbourne. That means we can only win if we also have the support of our traditional base and they have deserted us in large numbers. I would suggest to you that they think that we’ve deserted them, betrayed them. They think we’re in bed with the Greens. And it’s going to be hard to get them back, as was demonstrated just over a year ago.

Gerard Henderson: But when you talk about the right path to victory, essentially as the former convener of the national right, what you’re saying is, the Labor right has got to become more influential within the caucus. But you’re also saying a lot of the figures in the traditional Labor right seats, particularly, around Sydney, feel the need to become more progressive because they want to appeal to certain groups in their electorate. So, how can you make the Labor Party more right wing inclined, which as you pointed out, is the way that Labor wins elections, if the people you’ve got there are moving to progressive positions?

 Joel Fitzgibbon: There are a few responses to that. One, I’m going to say, audaciously, that the local MPs don’t necessarily get it right. Their perception of what their electorate looks like these days might not be entirely accurate. The second point I’d make is that we don’t need progressives in inner city seats to be sitting on 13 per cent margins, while we can’t win a seat in central Queensland. To put it more bluntly, I’d love to take 5 or 6 per cent off say someone like Ged Kearney who sits on 13 per cent in her electorate and put it on the electorate of Flynn around the port of Gladstone in Queensland which would be sufficient to a Labor candidate across the line.

 The last point I’d make is that the Labor Party has to stop giving up on regional seats. I remember talking to Bill Shorten, about a week out from polling day in 2019, in Rockhampton. I was really quite distressed because I could feel the mood in Rockhampton wasn’t good. I told Bill that he might think Labor could win that election without those regional Queensland seats. If so, good on you. But if Labor can’t, you’re going to lose this election. And, most importantly, you’ll have a better caucus if these people are in it. In other words, benefit from people who live in regional Queensland, who understand regional Queensland, and could help to draw the party back to the centre. I suppose what I’m saying is that we can’t give up on them. I’m not saying Shorten had given up on them, by the way. That’s for him to say or not to say. But if we gave up, we would just be, increasingly, a caucus of progressives. And we can’t win an election if that’s the case.

Gerard Henderson: You were saying the Queanbeyan research has application in Western Sydney, the Hunter and central Queensland. Those traditional Labor voters you’ve lost began to hate you. Now, as you know, once people begin to hate you, it’s very hard to get them back. If you look at when the Labor Party split in the 1950s in Victoria and Queensland. People like my father who’d been in it for years were suddenly expelled. They ended up hating the Labor Party; they never came back. So, with people who were set upon and regarded as not wanted, how do you get them back?

Joel Fitzgibbon: You have to move quickly and loudly. You won’t get them back by saying we’re not against gas, or we’re not against coal. That’s just too nuanced. Unfortunately, I am framed by my enemies, and by some of the media since the last election, as a person who simply has a focus on coal, or fossil fuels. That is unfortunate for me, but it’s something I’ve been prepared to wear. I need to put up an ambit claim. I need to be more right wing, if you like, to get back to the centre. And we have to hope with those who have deserted us, the people who hate us, are only a minority. There’s still hope we can get the balance of them back. But we won’t get them back until we’re very loud and clear about our intentions. And until they believe we are genuinely backing them. Nuanced language and a failure of senior people in the party to visit coal mines, no one goes there.

Gerard Henderson: But as you know, they feel that you left them. My father was a great admirer of Chifley and Curtin and felt the later Labor Party left him out.

Joel Fitzgibbon: Of course. The voters we have lost are also a demographic and susceptible to the right wing media such as Sky. Sky did that deal with free-to-air television more than a year ago. This allows their programs to go into regional Australia free-to-air. I’m flabbergasted by the number of people in the regions tuned into Sky. And the message that I hear most is the suggestion that we’re in bed with the Greens.

I did an interview with Sky Outsiders’  Rowan Dean in the midst of the bushfires. He gave me a sensible interview and, to his credit, it was good conversation. It was December and I was home. In my local area, I have never so many people react to an interview I have done. I’d go to the bread shop, “Good interview.” “Oh, you watched that?” “Oh, me and my husband never miss Outsiders“. Going to the supermarket, three people would say, “Oh good interview.” I went to a function where I met up with a Liberal counsellor, well into his 70s.  He said, “Oh good interview.” By then, I’d had enough. “Oh, you watch that show regularly, do you?” I replied. He lives in an upmarket retirement development nearby. He said, “Understand this. Joel. In my village, everyone’s on Channel 53 [Sky free-to-air].

Gerard Henderson: I’ve noticed that too, on the south coast New South Wales, where we spend a bit of time. A lot of people come up to you in places you don’t expect, like Woolworths, and say, “Oh I saw you on the Bolt Report.” I was surprised by that, but they’re obviously watching these free-to-air Sky channels, most of them. Some have Foxtel.

Joel Fitzgibbon: I’m talking of what is happening amongst our people. And that’s what we need to be doing. I pick it up in people’s language. Some casual will find me in the pub and he’ll say something which I know came straight from Sky News, because I’ve heard it myself. I say you have to stop watching Sky News. We have a bit of a laugh about that. But it’s very, very influential. And we need to be in these spaces, talking their language.

Gerard Henderson: There is a reluctance of some of your people to go on Sky. That’s changed a bit. I see Tanya Plibersek is going on sometimes now.

Joel Fitzgibbon: She’s a regular with Alan Jones, and full credit to her.

Gerard Henderson: Yes. It’s good. So how do you get this message through in a difficult year. Anthony Albanese’s done okay, but it’s not an easy period. This is the first time Labor has a leader who’s from the left faction, and whose only chance of losing that seat would be to the Greens. And Tanya Plibersek, although she’s no longer deputy leader, is a very influential figure on the front bench. She’s also got a seat which she could only lose to the Greens. That’s got to put a constraint on your policy developments. Doesn’t it? You now have a Labor Party that’s led by the left.

Joel Fitzgibbon: Gerard, if you set in front of me three emerging policy contests, you would, I suspect, predict absolutely which side of the fence I would be on. Or at least what my starting point might be. And that’s true of all of us. And you are right. A lot of people in leadership positions now sit in a different place from where I sit and have different starting points. That makes it a challenge.

After the election, I had a long discussion with Albo, who I still consider a mate. I asked him to convince me that, from his left faction, he would be sufficiently pragmatic and take us back to the centre. He assured me that would be the case. And he has always struck me as a pragmatic guy. He has been through the toughest of periods, COVID has made it impossible for opposition leaders. But we have a long way to go before we put “labour” back into the Labor Party.

Gerard Henderson: You’ve got a background in small business, and a very diverse background. You’ve got a seat in the Hunter Valley. You’re a rural and regional member, and there are not many of your lot on the front bench? Do you regret not having put your hand up for the leadership? You thought about it for a while, didn’t you?

Joel Fitzgibbon: I said in my press conference, on my resignation from the front bench, that I regretted not contesting the leadership. I would not have won in that beauty contest, as I call it, where the rank and file have a vote. Albanese was always going to win because he had strong support. The numbers are in the cities, not in the regions. The numbers are in the city and I obviously would not have beat Albanese.

But it would have been a good opportunity to develop what you might call a mandate. Even though I’d be the loser, I might have demonstrated the wave of support there is for greater emphasis on the region, and a greater commitment to return to our blue collar base. I could use that in my arguments and speeches, like the one I provided tonight. But that’s history. I didn’t do it. No great loss because, again, I wouldn’t have won the election. But I lost an opportunity for town hall meetings and to put the other view.

Gerard Henderson: You speak about putting labour back into the Labor Party. You are sort pushing for the old Labour movement to come back into the Australian Labor Party. How do you do that these days when it’s very much a professional party, very much based in the inner cities. It’s, as you make the point, moving to be progressive rather than socially conservative as the old Labor Party was.

Joel Fitzgibbon: First of all, it’s a term that quickly encapsulates where we’ve been, the reasons we were formed, the sheering sheds of Queensland, the wharfs of Balmain, coal mines, etc. Why we were born to represent those people. Now, not all people who struggle in the workforce are blue collar workers, of course, such as those who work in aged care centres, and the like, and retail. They also have to be part of our constituency. But I go back to building a coalition.

And you’re right, it is a professional party these days. But we do have to start securing some of what I would describe as real candidates. We had a very good candidate in an electorate in central Queensland, at the last election. A local footballer and a counsellor with local government. He presented very well. We gave him no hope of winning.

But I make that point to make another. We have the strictest party discipline in the world, not just in Australia, in my view, in the world, I’ve had a look around. Arguably, the Liberal Party of Australia has the second strictest discipline in the world. And we’re asking candidates in the regions to deliver the same message we’re delivering in the city of Melbourne or Sydney. You can’t win elections like that. We have to allow our candidates and members to be champions of their own electorates. You can’t be a champion of the electorate in Flynn talking in the language of inner-city Melbourne. We need to give them more flexibility and more ability to say what they need to say to win an election.

Gerard Henderson: So what should Labor members or potential members, candidates be saying about coal and gas?

Joel Fitzgibbon: They should be saying that the resources sector is the economic backbone of our country; it gives us that additional level of capital wealth. While ever there is demand for our products, we should keep selling it. It’s a very simple message. In doing so, they maintain the workforce and, indeed, grow the workforce, increase foreign earnings, etc, etc. But we can’t have people simply saying we’re not against the coal mine industry, or we’re not against the oil and gas industry. That doesn’t cut. People in regional Australia will wake up to that very, very quickly.

Gerard Henderson: I picked up an ABC presenter on news breakfast in my Media Watch Dog blog recently who’d condescendingly said coal was taken out of these areas, if we weren’t exporting it, that we would have to look after low income earners. But, as you know, these people earn lots of money, don’t they?

Joel Fitzgibbon: Well, these people just don’t know what they’re talking about. Coal miners earn, on average, $130,000 a year. That’s a pretty good income.

 Gerard Henderson: Particularly in a rural, a regional area.

Joel Fitzgibbon: Some will be as low as $110,000 and some will be much higher if they’ve got higher accreditation skills. A deputy, for example, would be on $250,000 and an engineer would be on $250,000. A TAFE qualified engineer would be on $250,000 – no problem at all. These people aren’t getting jobs elsewhere that pay anything like that sort of money, certainly not working on windmills, or solar panels. And they’re all locked into home mortgages. And they can’t pay the mortgage on anything less than what they are on now, or they would struggle.

This idea that we can transition workers in mining to another job is just ridiculous. In any case, why are we talking about a transition. It’s not happening. Our coal generation sector is in transition. Some coal generators will close in the decade to come. But some of the younger generators in Queensland will go for another 25 or more years. But they’re going. And no one would invest in a new coal fire generator, in my view, because you need a 40 to 50-year return. And we don’t know what the energy systems will look like in a week, let alone 20-years time. So that won’t happen. But the coal sector is dominated by exports. Ninety-five per cent of our coal goes to export markets, and is not used here in Australia. The demand for our thermal coal will remain strong for decades to come.

I was meeting with a coal mining company yesterday, in my electorate. The company is about to invest a billion dollars to keep the mine going to at least 2050. This is thermal coal. Now, I always say follow the money. Forget about all the reports from think tanks. This is a second tier company that raises private equity, not one of the big companies. If they’re prepared to put a billion dollars on the line because they reckon customers in Asia are still going to buy our thermal coal, believe them.

Have a look at what companies in rail stock taking coal to ports. Glencore, who mischievously last week announced they’re closing two mines, hinting that it was about their carbon footprint, are now extending three other mines. They’ll be opening more coal than they are closing. They’re only closing those mines because they’ve run out of coal. They were always going to close.

So the coal mining industry will be around for a long, long time. So please stop talking about transition. If you’re a 35-year old coal miner with a wife and kids, you want to be able to work there for another 30 years, to raise your kids and give them the best opportunity in life. Most coal miners don’t want their kids to be coal miners. They’d much rather they become a doctor or a nurse or a lawyer or an engineer, whatever it is they want in life. So, they’re in transition. They know it’s not going to be there forever. But they don’t want a political party coming along with some policy that’s going to close their job off earlier, before they get that opportunity to give their kids the opportunity they want to provide for them.

Gerard Henderson: I suppose you can understand why an ABC presenter from the inner city essentially doesn’t understand the coal industry. But what about your own colleagues? Do they understand the vibrancy of coal and gas in these areas of the Hunter Valley, New South Wales, and central Queensland? Do you think they understand those local economies?

Joel Fitzgibbon: Some do. But I think they are in the minority. We had a recent long interaction on gas policy; it was well publicised. And we had a settlement on what we’d be saying about gas. It struck me during that debate, just how little the majority of the caucus knew about gas. Now, that’s not a criticism. I’ve always had a strong interest because I’m a regional member. I’ve been A shadow minister on more than one occasion. So, I’ve had to know it well. We all have our niche areas of interest and expertise. But it was just simple things they don’t think about. Figures like the fact that 37 per cent, or thereabouts, of gas consumption happens in our manufacturing plants, either as a feedstock or a heating source; 10 per cent we use in our household day-to-day. And some are talking about phasing out gas. I say, “Do you have gas hot plates at home?” They say, “Yes.” I say, “Well, where do you think gas comes from?”

 We need to do better at educating city based MPs on some of these issues. Issues like the difference between thermal and coking coal – how much goes to electricity generation and how much gets exported overseas. In the debate on climate change, almost the entire focus is on electricity generation. But it is not alone in the emissions problem – transport is big, agriculture is big. We rarely talk about that.

Bill Shorten wanted to have a target of getting 50 per cent of our vehicles sold to be  electric by 2030 and it killed him. But, it’s pretty sensible. It was a first phase. He wasn’t going to make people buy electric cars. But we do need to focus on the other sectors and take some of the weight and focus off electricity generation.

Gerard Henderson: I watch a bit of television, as you would expect. I don’t often see the Labor leadership at coal mines or gas sites. Has your lead been to coal mines recently?

Joel Fitzgibbon: Well, Richard Marles, the deputy leader, was recently at a gas project INPEX in Darwin. But no, in 18 months Albo hasn’t been to a coal mine.

Gerard Henderson: Why would that be? As you know, he’s interested in the economy. Does he feel that that would send a bad message to his supporters in the inner city?

 Joel Fitzgibbon: I think so. It’s entirely possible that if there hadn’t been bushfires, he might have made it. And then COVID came along, making it more difficult. But bushfires should not have made a difference. I’ll tell you a funny story. In December 2019, Matt Canavan, who was the Minister and I was the Shadow Minister, rang and said the CEO of the World Coal Organisation was in the building, and would I like to come and meet her? So I did. And Matt and I had a photograph with her. I posted it on Twitter, and maybe I was being a little mischievous. I had something like a couple of thousand people criticise me on Twitter, because I had the audacity as the Shadow Minister for mining to have my photo taken with the CEO of the World Coal Organisation. What’s in the water, Gerard, that it’s become a crime to have your photograph taken or meet with an important stakeholder in an industry, which earns us hundreds of billions of export earnings every year?

Gerard Henderson: And pays a lot of company tax.

Joel Fitzgibbon: A lot. And royalties. And export income. There’s an elitism creeping into the Labor Party. You know – I’m an enlightened person; you’re not. If you’re not as focused on climate change policy, you don’t understand.

Gerard Henderson: What was the term you used, you’re a what person?

Joel Fitzgibbon: The elite. You’re not as enlightened.

Gerard Henderson: Enlightened.

Joel Fitzgibbon: You don’t understand, the world is coming to an end and this has to be our entire focus. And if you don’t speak that language then you’re stupid, basically. You don’t understand what’s happening.

Gerard Henderson: So you’re copping that on Twitter, but are you copping that in the Labor caucus?

Joel Fitzgibbon: I think there’s an elitism in the caucus.

Gerard Henderson: In the shadow ministry?

Joel Fitzgibbon: In the Shadow Cabinet, yes. And there’s even a little bit of born-to-rule style, frivolous criticism of our opponents?

Gerard Henderson: Like the Prime Minister?

Joel Fitzgibbon: Yes.

Gerard Henderson: What’s frivolous about the criticism?

Joel Fitzgibbon: Well, I remember one meeting, and I won’t say which one. A new minister was appointed and there was a chuckle around the room and a suggestion that this was a poor appointment, that the person probably wasn’t up to the job, and it was just a gesture. I said, “What are you talking about? I know this person. And I think the person will do okay.” I’m being careful not to be gender specific.

Gerard Henderson: I noticed that.

Joel Fitzgibbon: And this is the mob that beat us every election. But we believe we are superior to them intellectually. And I think that’s part of our problem.

Gerard Henderson: As you know, I worked with John Howard in opposition. John Howard never underestimated his opponents. And eventually he got there. You know, it’s not the wisest thing to do.

Joel Fitzgibbon: My Labor colleagues initially underestimated Scott Morrison. I think, probably, they’re learning now that he’s a formidable opponent. In part, because he’s pretty good on the marketing and the spin. That’s not a criticism. Most good prime ministers are. They’ve learnt to take him more seriously.

Gerard Henderson: As you know, you had a role as Shadow Minister for Agriculture, and you mentioned agriculture a bit before. There’s a similar kind of attitude to some agricultural industries as there is to some mining and resources industries, among the people who call themselves progressive, some of whom are in the Labor Party, most of whom are in the Greens. Doyou notice that as well.

Joel Fitzgibbon: Of course, not as much, because while the level of comprehension of the resource industry is not high, agriculture is even lower. I don’t think there’s a broad understanding of agriculture in the Labor Party. I was on a steep learning curve myself when I first became the Minister for that 12-week period I described as the golden era in agriculture. It is a complex area. But of course there are animal welfare issues, there’s sustainability issues, land clearing, soil health, the idea that farmers don’t take care of their natural environment and all that sort of thing. There’s a bit of that in the Labor Party, but they don’t spend much time thinking about it.

Gerard Henderson: So, the Greens. They’ve managed to get one seat in the federal parliament when Lindsay Tanner resigned from politics in Melbourne. There have been suggestions they might have won other seats, but they haven’t. They haven’t got much above 10 per cent over the years. They’ve simply held their vote. To what extent are they a threat to the Labor Party?

Joel Fitzgibbon: I don’t see them as a threat. They might be a threat to us in a couple of seats. But if we build the right coalition of support, we wouldn’t necessarily need those seats. They’re a niche party, they only ever have to chase something less than 10 per cent of the vote and they get the outcome they’re looking for. The National Party is the same, by the way. But they have enough critical mass to kill us out there in the electorate.

As a Shadow Minister, I would spend some time almost every day dealing with another Greens motion in the Senate, and having arguments with my own people about whether we should be supporting or not supporting it. I often say that I can go back to my electorate on the Friday after the most tumultuous sitting week, such as a leadership change or something very newsworthy and I’ll walk into the pub that Friday night and someone will inevitably say, “Gday Fitzy where you have been this week?” They don’t even know we’re down there, let alone what’s going on in the bubble. But I can go to any pub in central Queensland and some character will try to tell me how many times we voted with the Greens in the Senate last year, the numbers are always different.

This is the strength of the LNP bush telegraph; they’re reinforcing this idea all the time that we’re in the bed with the Greens. That, in the end, they’re going to come after your job as a result. Now, if we don’t deal with that perception in the regions, we’re going to continue to struggle in the regions. There should just be a rule in the Senate motions – if it’s from the Greens, we’re against it, no matter how meritorious it might be. Then you have a standard and someone can’t argue that we should not have supported that one. Their motions don’t have any effect, no practical effect, no outcome and we should just vote against them all.

Gerard Henderson: I don’t expect you to give a comprehensive answer on this. But it always seemed to me that the policy in certain parts of Australia where the Liberals give their preferences to the Greens is counterproductive for the Liberals. Now you’re a Labor man, you probably would say that. But that’s the only way the Greens can threaten you.

Joel Fitzgibbon: I’ll answer that in an unusual way. I won’t talk about the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. I’ll talk about the need for like-minded people to, if only very informally, stick together. If you’re not of the moderate wing, if you’re of that sort of more right wing side of the Liberal Party, or the more conservative side, you should be talking and working with people on the conservative side of the Labor Party about those decisions. It’d be different outcomes for different people, I suppose. But we should be all banding together and see the Greens as a common threat.

Gerard Henderson: It’s about a bit over a year since you were at The Sydney Institute in what was quite a groundbreaking address. Since then, you’ve stepped down from the Labor Party front bench. Another 14 months will take us pretty close to the next election. Maybe beyond it, but more likely close to the next election. What are you going to be doing in the next year and a bit? You’ll recontest?

Joel Fitzgibbon: My plan is to re contest. It might be that I have to re-contest. It may be that that I’m the only person that can hold onto it.

Gerard Henderson: That’s quite possible. It went very close to the Nationals last time.

Joel Fitzgibbon: It’s still on three per cent There are a lot of a lot of members in Canberra on the 3 per cent margin. But we have to be very careful about Hunter. I want to run because I haven’t given up on Labor winning an election. If I thought that Labor couldn’t possibly win the election, I might not contest because the time available for my pathway back to the blue carpet, as we call it, the ministerial wing, is shrinking. If we don’t win next time, I’d be waiting almost six years for another opportunity. At 58 years of age, I’m running out of time. The fact that I intend to re contest tells you that I still give Labor hope. But we won’t win if we don’t change our trajectory, if we don’t start building that coalition of support. If we don’t start putting labour back into the Labor Party.

Gerard Henderson: That’s a pretty good spot to finish on. Many thanks Joel Fitzgibbon.

Joel Fitzgibbon: Merry Christmas.

Gerard Henderson: Same to you.