Ben, Hi, welcome to up the creek, where we look at how institutions and individuals found themselves up the proverbial and dissect their efforts to reach calmer waters. I'm Ben Haslam

and I'm Mark Forbes. As journos, we prompted resignations and caused royal commissions as consultants, we protect reputation when crisis comes, but today, we first turn our reputation onto the energy sector, where we see the fossil fuel lobby attempting to take the fight to the environmental

Yes, interestingly, out of time this week that coincides with news that China's emissions, CO two emissions have actually fallen. It's often an argument that's used by those who are skeptical of attempts to tackle climate change, and in fact, there's no point Australia doing anything because of China and India. But Mark things are happening closer

to home. Well, they're hotting up. I mean, this is effectively a reputational battle between the environmental forces and the fossil fuel lobby. And there is beans at stake, potentially the future of the planet as well. And we're seeing here both sides attempting portray themselves, each other, as malevolent villains. But I mean, at the start of a year the oil and gas forces were riding high. We had Peter, Peter Dutton planning to coast into government, promising to be the best friend the mining sector had ever had, particularly uranium miners, and we'd seen a big court win for Santos pursuing the environmental Defenders Office for for 6 million in cost, successfully, nearly bankrupting them. And a big push going on for for legislation to outlaw or prevent process, you know, protests or legal actions against major projects.

Now these guys have got deep pockets too. Don't forget this. And they will use the courts and drag it out and attempt to, I suppose, at the end of day, use up all the resources of the people who are fighting to save the planet.

Yeah. Well, you could actually potentially put that, put that label to to both sides here. I mean, that's how they're trying to portray themselves. The fossil fuel lobby has adopted the term, term lawfare for these, these tactics against their projects, which is in some ways ironic, because we've seen with Santos, them absolutely using lawfare in the case of pursuing, pursuing high costs against small grassroots organizations, they've gone after, you know, whistleblowers and advocates individually to, you know, potentially for millions of dollars to bankrupt people. They have been playing really hard ball, but the return of Labor has sort of shifted the battleground and but it's interesting though, to say I think that those forces, the mining forces, have in the energy sector, forces have marshaled again, and the battleground is gas, because that that you've got labor just, uh, just northwest, yep, Northwest shell. I mean, they just approved it. Yeah, another, another 40 years. Yeah, that's, I think, equivalent to a decade of the entire nation's carbon emissions, about, uh, 4 billion tons of but is

that the gas that we burn, or that is sent off offshore and burn? Well, that's the Who do you

believe that's No, no, that's the cute. That's the cute. The cute argument that basically, well, this gas isn't contributing to emissions because we don't burn it here, we just send it

overseas. The other category to that is that if we didn't send it overseas, someone else would so, oh, what's the well, at least we should get the money kind

of or they might plug in and plug in a few more solar panels.

That's true,

but, but, I mean, this is a fight not just in the courts, but in the court of public opinion, and in in the gas lobby, which has really been led by by Santos and Meg O'Neill for TI of Woodside have been really going hard about economic damage, you know, suggesting that it's, you know, foreign actors coming here, destroying Australian jobs, uh, suggesting it might be sort of foreign mining companies who are trying to, she needs to build a wall. It's

a bit out of the Trump playbook, isn't it, and then she's gone after the poor youngies who are on, on the interwebs, buying their fast fashion. You know, she's saying, well, they're all a bunch of hypocrites, because don't they realize how much energy they're using to to buy faster Well, I would have thought solar panels, batteries and renewables could also power those those computers

couldn't they? They could. But this would, yeah, this was at the big Australian petroleum I think. Conference the other week. And it was, it was sort of extraordinary. This attack on entitled Gen Zers, you know, who are happy to use energy, but, but, but, suggests that, you know, we shouldn't well,

they going to be around in about 60 or 70 years, too, as well their kids and probably their grandkids. So, you know, I can kind of understand how young people would be a little bit concerned,

but I don't think that the various forces have really got their arguments lined up. Because we've got, we've got the CEOs of Santos and Woodside coming out making the fairly aggressive case for gas. We've got the those two big right wing think tanks. You know your old mates at the the Menzies Research Center, and they're not my old mates. Oh, who did you set up? Who did you set up a consultancy firm with it? No one from Menzies. No, no, no. Former federal director of a little party as your co director mate? No,

no. Graham was never Graham Morris, no, I worked for Graham. I wasn't in business with Graham. That's the lovely Graham Morris. I just was a mate of mine and a very nice guy. But yeah, and then there's the Institute of Public Affairs. I noticed Adam Crichton, the former North marine correspondent for Australia, is now their head economist, and was out this week claiming that the federal government has spent $9 billion subsidizing renewable sector. But also said in the same piece that it's quite hard to track where all this money is spent, but it still he was able to come down to that $9 billion figure. So yes, you're right. There are, there are various think tanks out there who are

beating the drum, and they haven't. They haven't got the lines right in terms of Gen Z. I mean, we've, we've, we've had Meg O'Neill from Woodside attacking entitlements, and people are happy to reap the benefits of fossil fuels but not pay for them. But meanwhile, we had the the Institute of Public Affairs, put out research that was claiming was showing that Gen Z actually was against net zero, or importantly, they weren't prepared to pay for it so. But this was IPA commissioned research about which I'm extremely doubtful, claiming that 54% of 18 to 24 year olds should affordability should be the government's top energy priority, and 58% said they wouldn't pay more than $50 a year to make climate targets. I'm intensely dubious about how leading those questions that how leading those questions? Yeah, I'm I'm cute. I don't quite know where this is going to go. I think that we are going to and I think the battleground is will probably be the new Environmental Protection Act that Albanese has again promised after dumping it before the last election, this time with the new minister. But how they straddle the two sides of this debate, because they're embracing gas as a transition, correct? I was going to say that. But

so why doesn't the gas lobbies use that as a as a pertinent argument? Well,

they're embracing that there, but, but it is one of the dirtiest fuels going around

his coal. I think it's a half to two thirds of the amount of CO two is produced, by by burning natural gas,

yeah, but there will be a lot of pressure. They will be, the conservatives will be, I suppose, discouraged by Duttons defeat. But I'm very curious about how the debate will will play out in terms of preventing grassroots organizations from objecting to projects that are seen as being of national significance or importance, which is clearly what the big fossil fuel producers, what the big fossil fuel producers are doing.

Now, you touched on this before, when I said deep pockets, talking about the resource companies. You're saying that some of these groups that are actually bringing the actions against the miners, they're not necessarily short of a Fuqua themselves. I mean, there are wealthy people out there who are very passionate about the environment and very happy to donate large sums of money, and

some have been quite upfront. Mike cannon, Mike cannon Brooks and so on in the in the Australian context. And I mean, interestingly enough, even Andrew forest has, has been, has been supporting some of these philanthropic thrombopropic initiatives. But it's this. It's like sensationalist sort of scare language that people like Santos and woodsides and others are using, like suggesting, oh, this, some of this money come from overseas, you know, we don't know who it is. We don't know what their you know, we don't know what their motives are. Well, given that the head of Santos has been quite upfront as saying that we want to go after not just the the league. Groups like the environmental defenders office, we want to go after the people who've been funding them, yeah, and, and he's said openly, and that's not just in terms of costs. He claims that the damages from the delays to their big Barossa project up in the Northern Territory ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Yeah, yeah. So I think it's quite understandable that, if anyone's putting their money in the pockets to fight the fossil fuel companies, not wanting to open themselves up to to to a vindictive in vindictive legal action. And I sort of you help sometimes, to take a step back, yeah, and go, Okay, what's going on here? You've got one group of people who are trying to make money, and you've got another group of people are trying

to save the world. That's right. And one group that you know, would argue, well, we've got to look after interest of the shareholders. That's the law in Australia. And then, yeah, the other point of saying, Well, that's all well and good, but there may not be a world for the shareholders to enjoy all their children or their children or their grandchildren as a counter argument. Rio Tinto is another interesting one as well. You want to talk about window dressing with, with, with Rio Tinto?

Well, I'm not sure if in the end of this conversation, that's where I'll come down, but I think it's interesting. It's interesting that while you have effectively, you know the Santos Woodside and others, sort of doubling down on their assault on on their environmental opponents, Rio Tinto, which went through, you know, I think about six years ago when they they blew up the like 50,000 year old Rock Art in the Duke and George

CEO ended up resigning. Took about a month. He finally got there, I could have told him that on day

one, and they have been working on a reputational rebuild ever since. And in some ways, they've been quite successful, but it has been prompting another whole round of controversy recently, basically, we've Rio Tinto was, became the major sponsor of the Mabo center, named after Eddie Mabo,

and the anniversary was only the other day, a famous decision where terra nullius, with a high court, ruled that no there is a pre existing native title over over Crown land that doesn't have another title on it, and as long as you can prove a long standing or ongoing connection with that land, then you have title. It's one of the, well, probably the most famous since the harvester case anyway, the most famous decision of the High Court.

Yeah, and we've had now six of Eddie mabos descendants condemning the acceptance of this, this money, is betrayal.

Tell me about you're in Melbourne this. This is a Melbourne University where the center is going to go. And, I mean, maybe I don't read enough major, but this totally an apologies to the guys at CBD there. I do read you a lot, but I missed this. So tell us, for those of us who don't know, what's the story with the Eddie Mave Center at Melbourne

Uni. Oh, well, it's simply an organization that is has been been set up with the agreement of the family to actually promote the sort of values that Eddie stood for, because it was really about recognition, recognition of Aboriginal, you know, prior possession of the land, and in continuing to promote both land rights things such as treaties and so on. I mean, generally, you know, really quite, quite positive things. And you you wonder, you wonder, you wonder, you wonder how much, how much debate might have gone on before accepting those Rio Tinto dollars. But I think that there is an indication that they're trying to walk the talk. They're trying to they're trying to mean it, I mean, and then we've just seen a landmark deal with the traditional owners of Duquesne George in terms in terms of how preserving that area, in terms of payments to local communities and so on. And I mean, I think that with the days of cancel culture, that there is an assumption that you've done bad. That's it. I've been done with this looks to me like a genuine effort that's been going on for several years to try and redemption and and it wasn't the first thought I had when I heard about this sponsorship, but on thinking about it, I think, well, we'll get on it as long as long as they are genuine and as as long as they continue to actually behave in a responsible way, and what

they do, yeah, I mean, it depends. I'm not a very I'm not cynical by nature. I hope you're right. They seem to have done it gently, gently. They haven't made a big deal out of it, which I think is important too. I think if you go out and speak. The word too hard and fast on this kind of stuff, he'll go, this is all just, you know, window dressing as a term I used before. But I think after what happened several years ago with with the destruction of the cave, it makes sense for for Rio Tinto to be, to be, as you say, walking the talk.

Yeah. I mean, we talked. We were, we talked in one of our earlier episodes too, about about Gina Rinehart and and that tumultuous sponsorship of Netball Australia, when the team effectively walked, walked away from that. No, I think that was an example too. We go, Well, I don't think Gina has much of a track record in terms of true support for indigenous communities, and there's been no revisiting of some of the outrageous things that her father said, Well, you've got

an Aboriginal netball player with the word Hancock on the back, and this is the guy that said, I think, sort of broadly speaking, that aborigines would eventually Just be bred out of existence. I think,

is that effectively, now, if you're

an Aboriginal person running around with that name on the on the back of your jersey, I'm sorry you cannot. You can't expect them not to be upset. Just to put, to put it lightly, yeah, but,

but, I mean, given we're on sport, I mean, we were planning to talk a bit about about sport, sport and politics. Although this, this situation down in Tassie is fluid over the over, over, the new AFL stadium there has fed into politics, and it's become almost politics and politics, yeah, but big controversy there over the amount of resources going in to build the new Well, this is AFL stadium. So let

me, let me take I mean, look about an hour ago now, it's the fifth of June today, Thursday that we're recording this late in the afternoon on Thursday the fifth, less than an hour ago, a motion of no confidence was passed on the speaker's final vote, 1817, in Tasmania. The motion was brought by the Labor

officer. This was against the liberal. There's a liberal. There's a liberal minority

government led by Jeremy rock cliff. And the motion was brought on bread and butter type issues. The state of the budget is going from 1 billion to $11 billion deficit. It was based on the way that handled the building of two new ferries between Melbourne and Devonport, which is an absolute tremendous cost, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. And it was also about the Liberal government down there suggesting they may have to sell off some state assets to to pay for for government expenditure. But it's been

the footy stadium the other day,

apparently in and this is would not be unique to Tasmania. Footy is far more important than Tasmania has the worst results for school kids in Australia by a long way. I mean, Tasmania has a lot of social issues. They need more spending on health, particularly school education. But don't worry about that. Don't worry about that. Don't worry about whether you can catch a boat across to Melbourne or not. No, it's the footy. And the reason being that the government, with, ironically, with Labor's backing, said, we're going to build a three, $750 million covered Stadium in Hobart for 23,000 people, because the AFL, that's the Australian Football League, said, if you want to have a team in Tasmania, you've got to have this fantastic stadium. If you don't build the stadium, you're not going to get the team. Well, of course, no motion confidence. Oh my god, the government could fall, and suddenly it becomes this. This could mean that the AFL pulls the pin on our beloved Tasmanian devils. A lot of imagination went into that name, by the way, footy team, they've got 200,000 members already, because that's basically most of Tasmania, I think, because it was $10 a pop, and that became the issue. It was, you'd almost think that there was a debate in the parliament about whether or not there should be a stadium, and other than the greens and a couple of cross benches, the two major parties,

I think, yes, I think there's an argument that it made. Might be the straw that broke the camel's camel's back for rock cliff, but it's all about the

roof. Well, the tutor advocate, the tutor advocate, the one officer struggle newspaper had a story with the headline, Tassie government blows up because pussy mainlanders can't play footy outside in the cold. There are two grounds that are you think are okay? You've got the bizarrely named ninja Stadium, which is the old Bellerive oval, and then you've got York Park, Eline system. Well, actually, well, actually host AFL games now, but No, they've got to have this. And the federal government's tipping in the same amount. All in all, it's about they reckon

Tasmania over a billion

dollars. They reckon this is going to, this is going to cost for a 23,000 seat stadium. The Head of Public Affairs at the Tasmanian Devils was crying in a media Oh, I

saw that on TV. Gave a media conference. Was a bunch of kids playing footy on an oval behind her, and she just broke down in tears, saying, We're just doing this for the for the for the for the kids. A bit corny, but then I think the premier Jeremy rock

pivot, in his speech after the motion of no confidence was passed, said that he. Also broke down in tears when he saw the Head of Public Affairs of the Tasmanian devils in tears as well. So, but it's a big deal. I mean, he made the point in his speech little over an hour ago that this gives a lot of kids in Tasmania a real lift, a real boost. You know, it gives them something to aim for. They want to play for their local footy team. It's a fair point. But again, um, I I mean, yeah, I know. Okay, there's a new election likely to come. Well, you said he's going to go to the governor now and call for a fresh election. Creates uncertainty. But does it mean the AFL is going to pull the pin? I mean, can we, can we get back to looking at more important? I know it's done. You and I both big footy fans, right? But more important, like schools and hospitals and roads. This is

Australia, mate. There's not much more important. There's not much more important than footy.

Oh, there's Tasmania. You're embarrassed by this too. I don't know, because the rest of I

think it would be, would be a hard ask for the AFL to walk away. I agree. I think, I think particularly if a stadium, if it does go ahead, even if there's no roof, I think it'd be really tough to justify it. They'll come under a lot of pressure. The feds have thrown the money in votes almost so so I'd be I'd be surprised. I might not, but it just does. It is interesting in terms of Australia and Australian politics, that everyone wants to wrap themselves in those sporting covers. That's right. Well, people can

understand it. People can relate to it. It's something they all want to do. I think you're right. And also look labor, and labor support it now, unless after the election, you know, the Greens say, Well, we're only going to the original election. I mean, well, that's true too, because the governor could actually say, no, no. Who else can form government here? Or can you get a new leader? Can you get a new leader? Can Eric Abetz, well, there's currently, now in the in the Liberal government. Could he come out and be the next premier of Tasmania?

One of the old hard right Warriors is Eric Yeah, we'll be taking, taking TAS evaluator,

yeah. I hope it works out for them, I'm looking forward to, you know, to having the Tassie devils in the competition. They'll probably win a premiership before carbon do, which would be a wonderful thing. Well,

mate sport politics in the whole box and dice mate will will be back in next month with some some more canny observations, when we see you up the creek, you.