Despite Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s confident assertion that Labor’s climate policy is minor party-proof, and can be implemented without input from the Greens, the Albanese government has a policy and a political problem over the next three years on climate.
The policy problem is that its 43% reduction target by 2030 — while massively better than the Coalition’s ridiculous Abbott-era target — is still insufficient, and well short of the targets of countries such as the US and the UK. The end of Labor’s first term will be in 2025 — leaving just five years in what has been described as the most crucial decade for preventing 2-degree warming and keeping the goal of 1.5-degree warming in sight.
As part of the Glasgow agreement, Australia and other countries have been requested to revisit their targets by the end of 2022 — which may become a permanent “ratchet” mechanism to keep pushing countries to lift their goals regularly. The government will be able to respond positively to this request with its higher targets.
The political problem is that Labor will face relentless pressure to pursue more ambitious policy from both the Greens and independents, whose meal ticket is promising urban electorates faster progress on climate — but the government has different agendas for both.
Labor wants to marginalise the Greens, render them irrelevant, and demonstrate to voters of lost electorates like Griffith that they can have climate action without locking yourself out of government. But they want to boost the teals, to ensure that at the next election, the Liberals face an almighty struggle to get back any of the seats they lost.
There is a way to address both problems.
One of the few pieces of worthwhile legislation put up for consideration in the last Parliament was independent Zali Steggall’s private member’s bill to establish an independent climate commission that would, free of direction from government, establish the five-year carbon “budgets” necessary to achieve net zero by 2050, and recommend implementation plans for different sectors.
Steggall’s bill would have left politicians in charge of making emissions reduction and adaptation decisions, but created an alternative centre of emissions reduction policymaking in the heart of Canberra, regardless of who was in government.
If the government backed a revised version of Steggall’s bill — perhaps by changing its guiding target from net zero by 2050 to reductions required to meet the Paris ambition of 1.5 degrees, it would accomplish several things. It would enable Australia to attend this year’s Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Egypt not just with more ambitious 2030 reduction targets, but with a commitment to an independent process for identifying a path to 1.5 degrees — without sacrificing Labor’s election commitment.
It would also be a demonstration of the effectiveness of teal independents and their capacity to deliver meaningful climate action — a signal to voters in their seats that they are making a greater difference than a Liberal MP.
With majority government, Labor risks sidelining the teals and making the case for the Liberal Party to take back their seats, by pointing to the lack of any effective action delivered by the independents. It is thus in Labor’s interests to portray the teals as delivering.
It can also lock the Greens out of the process altogether, presenting a teal-backed climate commission bill to the Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The Greens can defeat it at their peril, and explain to their new supporters in Brisbane why they blocked a big step forward in independent climate policy. Indeed, one of the government’s goals should be to use the Greens’ power in the Senate to start accumulating double dissolution triggers that could give Albanese more options for calling the next election.
It would also divide the Coalition, with the remaining moderates tempted to back the bill, while hardline denialists rail against it.
The only downside is that a new body, properly established, would indeed create pressure on Labor to increase its emissions reduction targets, but it could take a commitment to implement an independently derived target to the next election. The Liberals and the Nationals are going to campaign on a climate denialist stance regardless of what Labor does.
There hasn’t been much needed for the cliché “good policy is good politics” in the past few years in Canberra, but it could still be true on climate.
I’d like to see a rest from nasty calculating politics and a bit more trust, sharing and generosity between people and parties with similar opinions
Hear Hear!
Gawd I hope you are wrong Bernard about Labor’s inclination to exclude The Greens. Doing so, I suggest, will result in an even more diminished primary vote for Labor into the future. And such politics for the sake of politics approach will almost guarantee that outcome. If Labor is strategically smart and can deliver policies that in excess of 60% of Australian want on climate, environment generally, integrity, general and social equity and indigenous reconciliation (OK only 53% for that one) then Labor’s primary vote will stabilise. It may even go up a bit, but never enough to permanently make The Greens and the progressive independents irrelevant. Labor’s future is sensible power sharing with The Greens and and the progressive independents. Achieving that will mean that that Liberals never get the treasury benches again and that must be Labor’s objective.
If only our Labor could look across the Ditch, to where NZ Labor chose to give a climate ministry to The Greens, even though they had the numbers to govern alone.
The Grunen have been Ministers in several German governments of all stripes sinc the late 80s, as currently.
It would be nice to live with grown up government – if only there were one on offer here.
Labor has been pretty clear it would rather be in Opposition than have any meaningful engagement with the Greens.
See any number of statements from Gillard, Wong, Bowen, Albanese et al.
Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t been paying attention for the last decade or two.
Indeed. It appears, of all its promises, that is the one Labor is most determined to keep.
Agree Agree Agree . .
Not kow-towing to the Greens doesn’t mean that Labor will dismiss all their ideas and contributions. Labor is always more conciliatory and mindful of the impact on the voters. The Greens so far haven’t been because they know the will never have to be the party of government, so can just keep baying at the moon.
This was always the danger with the election results: widespread agreement across several parliamentary groupings that climate action is essential, breaking down when trying to determine the best possible way to achieve this outcome. The teals, presumably, will want to see market-based approaches. The Greens and those on the left will prefer state-based outcomes through, for example, legislative change.
The risk is that those involved with carrying the banner forward will become bogged down in internecine squabbling and achieve nothing of significance.
Then, in three years when the Liberal National Murdoch party has regrouped and public cynicism has set in, the LNMP will sweep back into power and the world will fry.
The only way this will be avoided is if everyone keeps their eye on the main game. For myself, while my instincts may be for left-leaning solutions, I don’t really care how we get there, just so long as we do.
The teals, presumably, will want to see market-based approaches. The Greens and those on the left will prefer state-based outcomes through, for example, legislative change.
I cannot begin to think why you imagine the Greens do not support a market-based approach. The Greens supported the carbon price. The falling out with Rudd was nothing to do with the mechanism of his proposal, it only went wrong when Rudd watered down it down to the point where the compensation to polluters became an incentive to pollute. The Greens would go with any market-based strategy that was realistic. And any market-based policy other than a laissez-faire (do nothing except keep our fingers crossed for the best) non-policy will involve legislative change. That’s how the energy market and carbon emissions are regulated.
oops – the first line of my comment was of course supposed to be in inverted commas as a quotation.
Terrific idea to push the Teals to prominence and cut out the Greens altogether! With a bit of luck, we’ll be entirely rid of the Greens and their pesky left wing social justice policies a few elections down the track, and there’ll be nothing but right wing economic policies anywhere!
Yep, won’t it be just dandy.But as Bernard points out: “a new body, properly established, would indeed create pressure on Labor to increase its emissions reduction targets”. That is why it will never happen.
Why do you think this? I have assumed that Labor will go to the 2025 election with greater commitments having shown that the sky has not fallen with a target of 43%. They will also be able to claim credit for having given renewable energy businesses a leg up with the certainty of incentives rather than obstacles from the federal government. They will have the support of the Teals and the Greens will be able to show that they will not allow the perfect of net zero by 2035 to get in the way of the good of net zero but 2050 or, as Bernard points out, whatever it takes to keep global temperature at no more than a rise of 1.5 degrees C.
If you think the Greens have a monopoly on leftwing social justice policies…well, you need to think harder.
Maybe not, but this idea that the Greens are illegitmate is nauseating. Especially considering the power waged by the Nats with less than half the supporters. Labor needs to concentrate on the job at hand, and proving themselves the better governing party compared to the Coalition. Not wasting time and alienating preference voters by wedging the Greens.
I agree.
I cannot see the why Labor would be so anti-Green. Greens are a left wing party, arguing for most things Labor would have promoted over history. Surely better to have them on side. Of course they stupidly wanted the perfect instead of the practical by voting down a step-policy back in the Rudd Gillard days, aand that will always haunt them.
Not to say it’s not a great idea to keep the Teals promoted. That’s a very nice tactical move.
But we have Labor, the Greens and the Teals wanting to do something serious about climate change. Surely now is the best opportunity.
That tired old falsehood about Krudd’s job creation scam…sorry, scheme for merchant bankers under the cover of being a carbon reduction will only “haunt” people who wilfully, or ignorantly, push it in total contradiction of reality.
Give it a rest and look to the future… of being scammed again by ‘Labor’ B/S about having an environmental conscience.
If Albernese is true to his words about being a unifying force he will utilise good negotiation skills to make use of the talents in the cross bench. The general population including Labor supporters want the best approach to managing climate change and would not quibble over extra emissions reduction. Having them all onside would be the best outcome and Labor must be careful not to let factional warriors determine our future
The question is how do Labor appease their fossil fuel donors? There is barely a gnats breath between ALP and the Coalition policy. So assume each party has been receiving vast amounts of money to keep as close to the status quo as possible. Perhaps AGL is a good sign
Greens have in the past been past been at least partly responsible for the failure of 2 Labor governments in joining with the cons to defeat Rudd’s carbon reduction scheme, then giving credence to Abbott’s lie about it being a carbon tax when Credlin later admitted that it wasn’t.
Next was the refusal to back the at that time only acceptable ( to the Australian voters ) alternative to the ‘Pacific scheme ), being the Malasia scheme.
The Greens convey of the politically dense to lecture coal seats about coal extraction, with no viable alternatives offered, helped Palmer’s cause of wrecking Labor in Queensland and put NSW Hunter seats into jeopardy.
Greens are so enamoured of their own self-righteousness the y deny the good because it’s not perfect and paved the way for the last years of denialist bastardry and kleptomania by the cons.
Greens have a long way to go to redeem themselves; at least the Teals seem to have a few brains about them.
Wrong – see the tea towel, classic C3
Because New Labor is a neoliberal Centrist (to Centre-right) party (and has been for decades).
It doesn’t haunt them in the slightest because it was the right thing to do.
https://greens.org.au/explainers/cprs
I’m looking pretty hard, but I’m not seeing much. Even a moderately progressive Labor party would right now be framing a narrative around the “Morrison Dutton debt and deficit disaster” in order to jettison the $184 billion stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthy. To spend on social housing, for example.
Perhaps one of the lessons to be learned from this election is that voters are not going to put up with divisive politicking any longer.
Sure, reform all the things such as housing and middle-class welfare, but no need to be confrontational about it.
Just go about it circumspectly first term, and then, when their electoral capital is built up enormously for the second and possible subsequent terms, rip it into the bastards, the same tactics that Howard used on his ‘never, ever’ GST.
The main cost of living pressure for over a third of the population is housing. What is Labor offering? 20000 social housing units over 5 years – a whopping 4000 of which will go to older women or women with children fleeing violence, plus 10000 units for frontline workers and a shared equity scheme limited to 10000 applicants per annum that won’t touch supply. These policies barely qualify as a drop in the ocean.
What are the Teals offering? Crickets, mostly. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Hands off negative gearing, capital gains tax concessions, don’t touch super tax contributions for the wealthy and lower taxes for individuals and companies while you’re at it, right across the board. They ran on fiscally conservative platforms. When they do support social housing, it’s for specific segments of the community – women fleeing violence etc, those on the lowest incomes. Meanwhile, out here in the real world, the income cut off point to access social housing is so far below the minimum wage in most states and territories, most working individuals and families can’t access it at all and are entirely at the mercy of the failed private rental market. It’s a nifty way for the states to hide missing supply behind draconian income limits.
Next on the list of cost of living pressures for ordinary people is out of pocket medical expenses, including dental. Australia has some of the highest out of pocket medical expenses in the OECD. People skip necessary GP appointments because they don’t have the $90 to pay upfront and can’t find a bulk billing clinic. They skip dental care altogether.
Food and fuel are right up there, too, of course- but I’m talking about things federal government policy can do something about. It can’t do much about the state of just in time capitalism, resultant supply change issues and fuel shocks imposed on us by the war in Ukraine- though frankly, it could do something about that last one, particularly when it comes to gas.
I have thought long and hard about this, Pankration. The difference between us possibly lies in our interpretation of “social justice policies”.
So refreshing to hear someone speaking some hard truths about the sanctified Teals. Although their positions on climate and integrity are good, in the final analysis the Teals are disgruntled Liberals who advocate neo-liberal economics to keep themselves in their beachside mansions.
The Teals are exactly what Labor stans accuse the Greens of being.
Please advise of other political entities that have left-wing social justice policies
How true. Socialist Alliance has a range of commendable policies.
True, SSR! They were very high in my Senate preferences as a result! They didn’t offer any lower house candidates in my electorate, though.
The Greens did.
Spot on! Sometimes I worry about what goes on in Keane’s head; mostly on the money but every now and then, complete wacko.
If you think Bernard is inventing Labor’s desire to marginalise the Greens, then you haven’t been paying attention to what Labor have been saying.
Not at all. This article shows (yet again) Keane’s impartiality and political adroitness. He gives (brilliant) political insights to the Libs, Nats, Labor – everyone – where it would improve political processes. Incredibly even-handed.
So KH, forget real action on climate change, affordable housing, social housing, affordable education, affordable childcare, affordable dental care? Just pesky policies not to be taken any notice of, right? Forget what the rest of the OECD is doing, just do the bare minimum, just like America right? Cause that’s working out so well for them, right?
Sorry KH, I misread your original comment. I see we’re on the same page.
It’s ok, Bref. I’m a little on edge too, at the moment.
The ALP must keep the Greens and indepenents looking fairly good, good enough, for any weakening therein will see certain electorates revert to a brainless conservative position, to the detriment of us all, as greedites, corporations, Murdoch and ambitious loudmouths get recharged. See.