By Simon Cowan
Photo: Greg Hunt's somewhat bemused response to Clive Palmer's climate policy suggested he was pleased with the turn of events. (AAP: Alan Porritt)
Clive Palmer's climate policy announcement, flanked by global warming campaigner Al Gore, certainly was high theatre but was this play a tragedy or a farce? Simon Cowan writes.
While the presence of Al Gore suggested a stunning political victory for the Greens and Labor, and it is tempting to cast Clive Palmer wielding the dagger as Macbeth, we shouldn't be so quick to cast Abbott in the role of Duncan.
The press conference was stage managed right down to the surprise twist, with questions such as "how will this global emissions trading scheme (ETS) work?" and "did you kidnap Al Gore to get him here?" cut short by an apparently urgent dinner.
Palmer has proposed that Australia legislate an ETS that would only take effect when China, the US, Europe, Japan and South Korea operate similar (possibly linked) schemes. Palmer later clarified that abolishing the carbon tax was not conditional upon supporting this global ETS.
The end result seems to be that, while the Renewable Energy Target (which wasn't under direct threat) and the rent-seeking Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) remains, the carbon tax appears finished along with the Government's deeply unpopular Direct Action plan.
In giving the Government's somewhat bemused response, Environment Minister Greg Hunt seemed pleased with the turn of events. Given that the Palmer-Gore ETS isn't linked to the carbon tax, and that the Government is freed from the terrible Direct Action policy, the Government may be able to let the ETS fall into legislative no-man's-land and live with the one-off budget impact of the CEFC.
Not perfect policy by any means, but it seems Tony Abbott isn't in receipt of Clive Macbeth's dagger this time. Perhaps, given who shared the stage with Palmer during the announcement, this one targets the representatives of the environmental movement?
Two of the main objections to the carbon tax scheme are that Australia was moving ahead of other countries with such a high price and that Australia's carbon tax simply exported our emissions to other countries.
However, we were assured by the Climate Change Authority and others that many countries were also pricing carbon. The Palmer-Gore ETS puts that Labor-Green argument to the test. If our major trading partners really are taking the same level of action as Australia then the ETS may have a genuine impact on the level of global emissions. If they aren't though, then the scheme isn't real.
Australian climate policy would rest on whether China really is serious about climate change.
While it's strange that one of the world's leading climate change advocates would lend his name and credibility to Palmer's policy, the theatrics of Palmer are but Act 2 of this Australian political play. Act 1 involved the imposition on the country of a carbon tax the people had not voted for.
It has become almost cliché to say that convincing the Australian public of the need for meaningful reform is all but impossible, certainly in climate change policy. The truth is that politicians have simply stopped trying to communicate with the public.
Kevin Rudd had a chance to take his ETS to an election and convince the public it was the right thing to do. He chose not to do so, trying instead to work it through Parliament via various deals. Julia Gillard had a chance at the 2010 election to convince people of the need for a carbon tax. She chose not to even try, instead attempting to justify it on the basis of a deal with the Greens.
It cost both Rudd and Gillard the confidence of the country and consequently their prime ministerships.
Why should the public support reforms they don't understand, to address problems that they haven't been convinced need urgent, drastic action?
The Howard government should already have taught politicians this lesson. Howard's failure to convince the public of the need for WorkChoices, instead relying on his control of the Senate to push through the legislation and convince the public it worked afterwards, led to his defeat.
Amazingly the Abbott Government, having given both Rudd and Gillard an abject lesson in how not to sell reforms, has chosen not to convince the public of the need for budget repair or healthcare reform but instead to play political games on what really constitutes a broken promise.
The marked difference between the public response to the first Howard-Costello budget and the first Abbott-Hockey budget can be directly attributed to the current Government not walking the public through the (very real) budget challenges facing Australia in coming years.
It has tried to skip the step where they make people understand just how bad the coming fiscal crunch is and it is being punished for it.
Into this gap steps the masked figure of Clive Palmer breaking the fourth wall of political theatre to tell the public what is "really going on". It's a strategy that has gathered a lot of (surprisingly) favourable media coverage, and the balance of power in the Senate. But will it be good for the country? I guess we will find out in Act 3.
Simon Cowan is a research fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies. View his full profile here.
Abbott, Palmer and Gore - a play in three acts - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
EmoticonEmoticon