Firstly, I would like to congratulate Michael McCormack on winning the leadership ballot and by so doing acknowledge the re-endorsement of his position as leader of the National Party. It is appropriate, if a political issue needs resolving, to put aside contentions held by some and follow the process that is there to allow the clearing of the air. That process has been followed and the issue is finalised. Our nation does not have a president; nor are we cursed with a tyrant. We have a free media, transparency in government and, as recent events have shown, problems don't happen with such things as sports grants that you will not later hear of in the public forum. One of the conditions of this freedom in our nation is the capacity for members of Parliament to challenge their political office-holders, if so desired, in the party room. For the Nationals, this process was made as brief as possible, prior to the first sitting of Parliament for the year. There was a spill of positions, I stood and I lost. I respect and support the vote of the room and will strive for the re-election of a Morrison-McCormack government. Now, my first attentions go back to where they were before this week, the seat of New England, drought, fires and now the threat of coronavirus. We arrive now at the period two years prior to the next election. This period is vital in setting the agenda that the Australian people will make their judgment on when they decide whether we remain with the reins of the nation in two years' time after the next election. There is difficulty in standing behind a promise; it is so much easier to stand beside delivery if you want to get re-elected. READ MORE: I have disdain when the term "learnings" is used. Learning is a verb, knowledge is a noun and "learnings" is nonsense. The knowledge we have attained from the bushfires and drought has to further develop our policy of building resilience into the future. As a government we have to deliver on what we have learned from these natural disasters and be standing beside those things by the time of the next election. When it comes to fighting fires, better access to reliable water supplies, clearing of road corridors in and out of firegrounds, communication facilities that can stand the challenge of fires, hazard-reduction and upgrade of fire trails are essential. This is to name but a few. If you want a macro-climate policy to show the world our leadership on reducing carbon emissions, then we must bring in nuclear power and development of the most efficient coal-fired power technology that uses the least units of coal for the greatest output of power. Wanting to develop the most efficient coal-fired power technology in the world is not disavowing the realities of climate change; it is actually something that could be provided to substantially curtail emissions. We have to recognise that the public acceptance of wind towers on the hill in front of their verandah is gone, and the public dissonance on that issue is as strong as any other environmental subject. We have to understand that there is no sure thing in a political debate. If zero emissions are the goal then surely nuclear energy should be supported, but it is not. If wind towers are a moral good and environmentally inoffensive, why can't we have them just off the beach at Bondi so we can feel good about ourselves while going for a surf? It would cause a riot. Do you want a 3000-hectare solar farm next door to you? Lots of glass and aluminium neatly in rows pointing at the sun. I am not sure others will want to buy that view off you when you go to sell your house! The weather has determined the political climate and everyone is manipulating the recent calamitous events to push their own particular barrow. Unanimity of people's political views on the fireground or feeding stock in drought as to what we can do to change the weather is as unlikely as unanimity about their favourite song. When politicians do stand behind a global climate policy, the only certainty is that it will be the policy that has the least direct effect on them. Wind farms are for your backyard not mine, zero-emission nuclear power is for France, coal mines should only be banned if the coal mines aren't in your electorate, and don't get caught on the sticky question of what replaces our nation's largest export. There is a desire for intermittent power generation such as solar, but an inability to afford the pump-hydro to make it dispatchable. Simple answers are generally wrong. So 2020 has started with quite some colour politically, and tragedy nationally. The art form of politics will be the cogent response that the Parliament can show the Australian people in two years' time.