With Scott Morrison off to Europe, Barnaby Joyce is now acting prime minister. It’s an appropriate end to a fortnight where he got so much of what he wanted.
Joyce was ostensibly returned to the Nationals leadership to soothe his bruised ego stop the Liberals becoming even slightly more ambitious on climate change. But despite the Nats’ recalcitrance, and Joyce’s reported opposition, net zero — a purely symbolic and inadequate target — was inevitable thanks to shifts in the international community, big business and even the Liberal Party.
The net zero pledge Morrison made on Tuesday gives Joyce what he wanted: a plan without detail that leaves the fossil-fuel sector untouched and avoids a more ambitious short-term emissions target while pouring billions into regional infrastructure projects.
The prime minister has refused to provide real clarity on how much the Nats extorted out of the net zero negotiations. Yesterday he suggested the price of any regional infrastructure investment would be included in the budget updates between now and the next election.
But Joyce has already flagged some of the Nats’ wins. In an opinion piece published in his local paper, The Armidale Express, he reflected on his stand-off with the Liberals:
In the recent net zero by 2050 negotiations I had a very tough week strengthening an agreement so as to get further protections and benefits for you.
He then went through a shopping list of projects he’d be able to fund “by staying in government”. It included plenty of projects in his electorate of New England: the Dungowan and Chaffey dams; an upgrade to the road at Bolivia Hill.
Then there’s inland rail, also mentioned by Joyce, a long-time pet project of his which will help accelerate coal exports out of central Queensland, increasing Australia’s emissions. There’s also a shout-out to the Hells Gate Dam near Charters Towers, in north Queensland.
Joyce’s desire to take credit for things this week occasionally put him at odds with Morrison. Yesterday he claimed the Nationals had secured a carve-out for agricultural methane emissions from the government’s net zero plan. This was shot down by Morrison, who said no, Australia had never planned to join an international pledge to cut methane emissions.
Irrespective of who’s right, the methane thing was another instance of Joyce trying to show regional voters how he’s made them winners out of the net zero shift. Meanwhile, anyone who questions the Nats’ incredible talent for pork-barrelling — from the net zero negotiations to the most recent round of the Building Better Regions Fund (which basically exists to be rorted by them) — is dismissed as an out-of-touch city slicker.
That was the message Joyce and Nationals MPs returned to repeatedly in question time this week, where they pointed out that although Coalition seats cover 5 square kilometres of the Australian landmass, Labor’s account for just 1.5 square kilometres (most of which is in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari). Despite the Nationals managing to set the course on net zero despite having just 16 lower house MPs, Joyce’s message to the regions is that you are Real Australia, and we’ve got your back.
All this draws plenty of derision from progressives. As Joyce steps up to play prime minister for a few days, Labor has been quick to fire off zingers.
On Wednesday Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese called him “the whoopee cushion of Australian politics” because: “You know you shouldn’t laugh when you hear him make noise, but somehow you just kind of have to.”
And sure, Joyce is red and buffoonish. He makes silly noises in question time. But behind all the silliness, he has emerged from this week with plenty of wins.
“…the Nats’ incredible talent for pork-barrelling…”
That’s only one side of the coin. Let’s also note the Liberal’s equally incredible talent for cheerfully giving in to every extortionate demand they make.
The Libs know full well that, without the Nats, there’d never be a Conservative Government ever again.
I would be amused if I wasn’t so appalled: both major parties make much of the supposed damage that would eventuate from electing Greens and independents and thus overturning the two party monopoly – and yet whenever Coalition are in power this is exactly what we see – an insignificant minority party constantly overturning the will of the majority in the interests of extorting more and more for their voters/donors.
But the Greens are also faced with the question of who will pay for the costs of the transition.….which is what the fight is all about (whether people accept the reality of a climate change emergency or not).
Note this statement a few years back from the BIS at Davos: “Central banks might have to buy the fossil industry”.
Hmm…a way to avoid squabbling over who will pay; since we can all share in the ‘opportunity costs’ of (inflation fee) money issuance in central banks, to buy the fossil industry, close it down, and build solar/wind + pumped hydro storage + smart grid.
oops, “inflation free”; the inflation constraint is available resources and productive capacity, not money.
It would be nice if as well as the political argie bargie, the disastrous implications this deal has for climate change was reported, including LNP wedging Labor so they won’t act on methane emissions either. Eg, Paul Gilding’s ‘Why The Climate Emergency is now The Methane Emergency.’ Also, the fact that the Beef Industry thinks they can reduce emissions, so is not opposed to action on methane is further indication of the Nationals betrayal of the interests of agriculture.
Agree. We are constantly faced with Lib and/or Nat MPs or Ministers doing vapid -ve PR but related to this from the article: ‘stop the Liberals becoming even slightly more ambitious on climate change.’; who, outside of the Libs and Nats, is actually pulling the strings in the background? We all have a good idea of the usual suspects of organisations and/or people, but our media avoids any scrutiny of the same? Till the same modus operandi becomes too awkward to ignore…..
Among the “wins” that you might list are surely the funding of this or that dam. One thing that Barnaby lists as a “win” is blocking a requirement that farmers reduce methane emissions from burping and farting cows and sheep. This so-called “win” just illustrates how ignorant Barnaby is. The CSIRO is bringing to commercialisation the use of a small amount of Australian seaweed, which First Nations peoples can supply, that not only reduces these methane emissions to near zero but also increases the size of cattle and sheep. This increases profits for farmers. Barnaby is therefore acting against the interests of farmers. His other proposals also represent the same short-sighted commitment to preserving industries that are going to be discarded, because they are too costly, with Australia being one of the countries bearing a larger share of the cost. Barnaby did not say anything about discarding the car industry. Has he been born when carriage building and horseshoe production and fitting was passing away and when hand sickles were being replaced with harvesters, he no doubt would have protested. Even intelligent conservatives make adjustments when some things must go in order that more important things remain. But Barnaby could never qualify as an intelligent conservative.
… and who said crime doesn’t pay?