When it was announced that the Energy and Environment
portfolios would be united some expressed concern the move represented a
downgrade of the Environment portfolio.
Under the
new arrangements, Josh Frydenberg will take up the job of Minister for
the Environment and Energy and a new Department of the Environment and Energy will
be created by adding Energy matters to the existing Department of the
Environment.
The new minister’s previous argument that there’s a “strong
moral case” for increasing Australia’s coal exports has led some to believe
that under his leadership this may be the case. Greenpeace called Frydenberg’s
appointment “a clear show of contempt for the Australian public”. Time
will tell what priorities he brings to the job.
Departmental culture will matter, argues RMIT senior fellow
Alan Pears.
“If the resource-oriented, centralised, growth-focused
energy industry culture dominates, we could see emerging industries blocked,
the climate response crippled, and environmental destruction,” he
writes.
Ministerial priorities aside, merging the Energy and
Environment portfolios makes a lot of sense, think some renewable energy
experts.
“The need to get energy and climate policies that actually
work together is critically important and justifies the change,” thinks Grattan
Institute Energy Program director Tony Wood.
He blames South
Australia’s rising energy prices and growing risk of supply
disruptions in part on poorly thought out renewable energy policy.
“We have seen energy market outcomes that impact our
capacity to achieve climate objectives and climate policies that have led to
negative impacts in the energy sector,” he told The Mandarin.
“The latest mess in South Australia is an excellent example
of the latter. So, the two of areas are almost symbiotic.”
Of course there’s the risk that the government will pursue
bad policy, but putting the two portfolios together should make that less
likely, he argues.
“It would clearly be bad if energy policy screwed up
achieving our climate objectives or if we pursued climate policies that led to
an unreliable electricity supply. But these are actually arguments for bringing
them together.”
Wood’s colleague Grattan Institute energy fellow David
Blowers, who has worked on energy policy for the Victorian government,
agrees that the changes make sense.
He told The Mandarin that “in the recent past
climate change policy and energy policy have run along separate lines, with no
real consideration of each other. We’ve seen climate change policy not having
an idea of how it’s going to impact on the electricity market, which has led to
perverse consequences. We’ve also had energy policy existing in a world where
climate change doesn’t matter, but it does.”
One example was the “bizarre” prospect of the 2014 Energy
White Paper, which barely mentioned climate change or the impact it will have
on energy policy.
Climate Institute CEO John Connor also welcomed the merger
of the portfolios, citing a lack of direction.
“We are at a critical time for our country and economy —
while the shift to clean energy is already happening globally, the hodge podge
of climate and energy policies in Australia is deterring investments,” said
Connor in a statement.
“Our politicians must work together to achieve solid,
constructive progress that integrates energy and climate policy and smooths
this inevitable transition to clean energy.”
Not an unprecedented move
The debate is reminiscent of a similar one that took place
in Victoria a few years ago. In April 2013 Premier Denis Napthine
announced that the Department of Primary Industries and the Department of
Sustainability and Environment would be combined. There were similar concerns
that environmental policy would take a back seat to farmers’ interests,
especially under a Coalition government.
Adam Fennessy was the secretary of the resulting Department
of Environment and Primary Industries, which ultimately only lasted around 18
months.
Fennessy told The
Mandarin earlier this year that “not surprisingly there are pros and cons”
to putting the two together. But he thinks it can work well.
These days the two portfolios are split between an economy
and jobs-focused department and an environment-focused one — the Department of
Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources and the Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning — which allows for different emphases in
advice to government.
But it can lead to positions drifting too far apart to be
useful if you’re not careful.
“If you have contested areas in the one department you can
try and sort out a balance within that department,” he says. “If they’re in
different departments you can get a really good concentration on the economic
aspects and in our case the liveability aspects. The risk is you move too far
apart.”
He and DEDJTR secretary Richard Bolt tackle this potential
problem by working closely together under a signed agreement.
Ultimately, however, although the structure of the
departments does have some impact, the minister is the one who makes the
decisions.
“Richard and I agree our job is not to try to crunch complex
issues into one piece of advice for government. It is, however, to get senior
officials to work together to get a good set of clear options so they can make
the trade off decisions, because they’re elected, and a lot of the trade offs
around the state are things that parliament should consider,” Fenessy explains.
“Is this part of the state best used for agriculture? Or
expanding the population? Where do you put your transport corridors? Where do
you preserve the highest value parts of the environment?
“We can go a long way to working those through, and then for
the really difficult trade-offs it’s got to go through a democratic process.”
No comments:
Post a Comment