Independent MP Zali Steggall’s climate change bill, launched this morning in Canberra, seeks to remove the primary impediment to serious climate action in Australia: major party politicians.
The bill advocates a souped-up independent climate authority — though, crucially, it still leaves government ministers in charge of implementation.
Steggall, who knocked off former prime minister Tony Abbott in his north Sydney seat of Warringah in last year’s election, is backed by fellow independents Rebekha Sharkie, Helen Haines and Andrew Wilkie.
But she may struggle to get her private member’s bill on to the parliamentary agenda in the face of a bitterly climate denialist government and a Labor Party torn over its addiction to financial contributions from coal-supporting unions and its desire to win seats in pro-fossil fuel electorates in regional Australia.
Steggall’s Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) bill in effect re-establishes the Climate Change Authority that was abolished by the Abbott government, but expands its role and enhances its independence to create an alternative centre of government climate policy making outside the major parties and their donors.
The new climate change commission would be charged with advising on five-year carbon emissions budgets all the way to net zero emissions by 2050, and emissions reduction plans to meet each budget. Government ministers, however, would still be the decision-makers on both the budget and the implementation plan.
Implementation plans would be required to include sector-specific policies and a broader cross-economy strategy strategy as well as addressing transition issues for “employees and employers, rural and regional Australia, Indigenous Australians and wider communities, including the funding for any mitigation action”.
The commission would similarly provide five-yearly “climate change risk assessments” and advise on a national adaptation plan, again for decision-making by the government.
There’s a safeguard mechanism proposed around appointments to the commission, with appointments having to be approved by a new statutory joint parliamentary committee on climate adaptation and mitigation. Although approval would be by majority vote, and the government would have the numbers on such a committee.
But unlike most government bodies, the commission would not be subject to government direction and the chief scientist would be a permanent member.
Steggall and the crossbenchers in effect want to upgrade the Climate Change Authority model — established by the Gillard government as part of its climate action package with the Greens — to a kind of Productivity Commission for climate action and adaptation.
It would generate independent emissions target and abatement and adaptation advice whether the government likes it or not, right down to emissions budgets for the next five years and how best to achieve them.
But while the bill provides for some requirements for ministers in relation to each stage of the emissions budget, implementation plan and adaptation plan process, ultimately it leaves the government — and the donors and lobbyists who shape its thinking — in charge of climate policy.
As we’ve seen with many Productivity Commission reports, government can blithely ignore them or cherrypick them for their own political purposes.
The thinking driving the bill — that governments can’t be trusted to develop climate policy by themselves, but require independent advice — really needs to be taken to its logical conclusion.
Like monetary policy, or regulation of key industries, climate policy is too important to be left to politicians and should be fully outsourced to an independent body.
The emissions budget and implementation plan process (coupled with continuous assessment of previous plans) is a good model for developing policy.
But the last 20 years — apart from when the Greens forced Labor to establish a successful carbon pricing scheme under Julia Gillard — demonstrates that decision-making as well as policymaking should be taken away from major party politicians who, as this summer has tragically shown, have delivered only catastrophe and failure instead of leadership.
The chance of insecure Scotty and his committee of no-hopers supporting this, or even allowing a free vote, is zero.
Reckon you are right there Mr Kemp, we know that the LNP are irrevocably and violently opposed to taking proper scientific advice from experts…but Labor might surprise us all by taking a principled stance, and then Scotty fM’s skinny majority might let him down – perhaps even one of the few genuine liberals in the Liberals might develop a conscience and cross the floor in defiance of Scotty’s instructions.
A hope well worth hanging on to. Climate change has been a negative for Labor and is fast becoming one for the Libs. Maybe both parties will see that this could allow them to save a little face and move on. Depends on the Lib moderates.
As an independent, national body, the new Climate Change Authority will be able to measure the nation’s progress against the international goals of zero emissions by 2050 etc. The fact that its judgements will not include apologies to the fossil-benefiting electorates is both its crowning glory and its Achilles heel. Every government that aborts its creation must be condemned loudly at election time. Eventually a bipartisan vote will bring it into operation. However, we must be vigilant that the Authority always reference the international goals, not the politically convenient measures of the day.
Time and time again the general community has been let down by the political process – esp when it comes to dealing with a changing climate and all its implications. One solution is to establish independent bodies that have the power and resources to carry out their tasks – independent as much as possible of anything to do with the political process. How to get it done in the current political environment?
I wish anyone willing to try and bring it about the best of luck.
To me it appears that a large number of politicians are arrogant and have a belief that they are gods. Hence we have ” Politicians are the best to advise what their community needs are” or ” I will make up my own mind and do not need any expert advice”. As gods they do not need to be encumbered by laws, rules or any other bodies and will not let a sniff of that happen.
‘apart from when the Greens forced Labor to establish a successful carbon pricing scheme under Julia Gillard ‘.
Gillard went to that election having stated several times before the election that she intended to put a price on carbon and she gave a time-frame. Then after the election for some reason she called it a carbon tax having said she wouldn’t have a carbon tax and the media completely forgot what she said before the election and went hysterical as they did about just everything she tried to do. She wasn’t forced by the Greens, that is rewriting history.
” She wasn’t forced by the Greens, that is rewriting history.” That is also my recollection. Trying to rewrite history is not a good look.
Also my recollection, browser.
JMNO…it wasn’t Gillard who called it a ‘carbon tax’, it was the rAbbott. It is not well understood that Gillard’s speech in which she said: ‘There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead’…is never completed, as she went on to say that her government would be introducing a price on carbon. I took that as a put down on the rAbbot’s description of a carbon PRICE as a TAX. She certainly was NOT forced by the Greens on this issue…she had already promised a ‘price on carbon’ before the election. But every journo and commentator in the country still continues this fiction!
As for Steggall’s new bill…it will end up in the rubbish bin if this putrid government has anything to do with it…and that sounds about where it should be if ministers still have the power to over ride any decisions the proposed Climate Change Authority might make. Steggall is on borrowed time IMHO…the Libs with throw everything plus the kitchen sink at Warringah next election. She is just another Kerryn Phelps waiting to happen!
Well done Zali Steggall, however we definitely need a body independent of politicians with guaranteed funding referencing the aim of zero emissions by 2050 or earlier. Those aims must be measured against international goals of zero emissions by 2050.