As National Energy Guarantee Negotiations Continue, Labor Holds The Trump Card

ABC News - Laura Tingle

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull have been optimistic about the fate of the NEG. (ABC News: Nicholas Haggarty)

It would be easy to simply see the current stand off over energy and climate change policy as what the late and legendary rugby league commentator Rex Mossop would have called "deja vu all over again".

At one end of the spectrum, the Greens reject the government proposal for a set of policy levers, which potentially put the climate wars of the last decade to bed.
You will recall that in 2009 the Greens insisted that the Rudd government's emissions reduction plans were not ambitious enough, giving Labor no option but to negotiate with the Coalition, then led by Malcolm Turnbull. Mr Turnbull did negotiate, compromises were made.
At the other end of spectrum is Tony Abbott, the bloke who killed the 2009 deal and, with it, the leadership of Mr Turnbull.
In the middle is the "everybody else" camp, not in any way in agreement with each other, but trying to muddle through a compromise.
And there is the dawning reality that the Government of the day may ultimately have to rely on the Opposition to get the federal legislation involved in this latest policy manifestation passed.

Unlikely bedfellows: Greens MP Adam Bandt and Liberal MP Tony Abbott. (ABC News: Marco Catalano/Selina Ross)

How will it all play out?
The differences between now and 2009 say much about how the politics of these issues have morphed since 2009 and also says much about how the way our politics has changed.
If you feel confused about just where everyone stands on the National Energy Guarantee as the week ends, you are not the only one.
Even some of those involved aren't really sure at the moment exactly what is driving some of the other people in the process.
So despite the various hearty expressions of optimism from the Government that all will be well, no-one is entirely sure how this will all play out.
Until Friday, most of the focus had been on the states — and whether they would agree to setting up mechanisms to regulate the energy market in a way which would require energy retailers to meet new supply reliability and emissions targets.
But the states' demand that they should not be forced to sign up to an arrangement which might get torpedoed by the partyroom has inevitably started to shift attention to not just what happens in the Coalition partyroom next Tuesday, but what happens in the Parliament too.

Will Liberals cross the floor?
The partyroom — and the Federal Parliament — will be asked to sign up to the emissions reduction part of the National Energy Guarantee: setting an emissions reduction target remains the purview of the Federal Government, rather than the states.
It seems reasonable at this point to think that the legislation will actually get the majority of the Coalition partyroom's support.

---

What is the NEG?

Malcolm Turnbull unveils his shiny new energy policy, complete with its own three-letter acronym. Here's what it all means.

---

The question is: how many Coalition MPs might cross the floor against the legislation?
Mr Abbott has apparently been telling colleagues that he will cross the floor if and when legislation comes to Parliament. The Government is nervous about Barnaby Joyce. There might be a prospect of a couple of others moving — Craig Kelly and Keith Pitt have been mentioned.
It is never a good look when members cross the floor on your legislation. But it is not lethal, no matter how much drama is sucked out of such an event on the day, and in the lead up.
Mr Abbott does not have the authority he once had in his party. It is likely his colleagues would simply shrug their shoulders and get on with things if he, and a couple of others, crossed the floor in the House of Representatives.
With the possibility of some floor-crossers around, the Government would need several of the Lower House crossbenchers to support its position, and it probably doesn't have enough of them. But they only come into play if Labor decide to block the legislation in the House.
The signs are, however, that Labor will let it go through the House, helping deprive the Coalition floor-crossers of oxygen, but would seek to amend it in the Senate.
Labor has a much higher emissions reduction target of 45 per cent — compared to the Coalition's 26 per cent — and it would, no doubt, seek to have that higher target included in legislation.

Labor has the trump card
In this era of minor party brinksmanship, no-one talks too much about Labor holding the trump card on policy. But this is a case where it almost certainly will end up doing so.
However, unlike Abbott in 2009, Labor has not been playing a game of "destroy at all costs" in this area of policy.
It has a great self-interest in the National Energy Guarantee being implemented and has acknowledged that there is a lot to be said for the policy — other than its lack of emissions reduction ambition.
The whole "early election" scenario has also faded post-July 28, so the sense of urgency around politics has also faded a little.
That just leaves the complexities of politics at the state level.
There is something of a disconnect between federal Labor and some of its state counterparts in this policy space, particularly with Victoria.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is facing an election on November 24, a fact not forgotten in the NEG negotiations. (ABC News)

The Victorians go to the polls on November 24 and, with a number of seats under threat from the Greens, the Andrews Government has been taking a much harder line than other states on the NEG.
And of course it is not only trying to force a higher emissions reduction target, and more regular target reviews on Canberra, but an acceptance of state renewable energy schemes too.
But the Victorian Government is also under intense pressure from business groups south of the Murray to sign up to the NEG.
The Victorians surprised almost everyone when Environment Minister Lily D'Ambrosio emerged a day before state energy ministers were due to meet with federal counterpart Josh Frydenberg and laid out a number of hardline positions.
It wasn't that Victoria was killing off the NEG, she said, just reserving the (hardline) position until the Coalition partyroom had dealt with the federal legislation.

Two questions
With signs that the negotiations between federal and state governments are now likely to be postponed for another four weeks, it raises some obvious questions.
Will the Victorian Government be in a better position to negotiate and be flexible when the state election is only two months away instead of three? One thinks not.
Second, what happens to the passage of the federal legislation in the meantime? Does the Federal Parliament — via one or other of the parties in it — effectively insist on waiting for a deal with the states to be sorted, or simply plough ahead?
You have to wonder whether those hoping for an end to the climate wars may have to wait until after November 24 to see an armistice.

Links

• With Abbott and the Greens on the same side, a golden moment in politics beckons
• States give conditional support to National Energy Guarantee, but more talks to come
• NEG will help cut power prices in most states and territories in the next decade, report finds
• How government inaction fuelled the renewables boom
• 'Frankenstein's monster': ACT won't support national energy plan in current form

The NEG's Failure To Factor In Climate Change Will Cost Our Pacific Neighbours Dearly

ABC News - Helen Szoke*

Pacific nations are among those that have the most to lose from climate change. (Supplied: Darren James)

As political leaders from across the country meet to determine the fate of the nation's embattled energy policy, they must be under no illusion as to how Australia's backwardness on climate change is perceived by our Pacific island neighbours.
No region is at greater risk to the dangers of climate change than the Pacific — nor more determined to lead by example.
And if Australia is to maintain its position as a trusted partner of Pacific island nations amid growing competition in the region, we must demonstrate that we are serious about the number one threat to the wellbeing, human rights and prospects of Pacific peoples — climate change.
But as it stands, the proposed National Energy Guarantee (NEG) will fall well short of demonstrating this commitment — and well short of the ambitious strides being taken by our Pacific neighbours.
In November, the Marshall Islands will host a special summit of the Climate Vulnerable Forum — a group of nearly 50 countries that are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including many of our Pacific neighbours.
Despite contributing almost nothing to the causes of climate change, members of the forum are leading the world to a brighter future. They are committed to achieving 100 per cent renewable energy as soon as possible and are urging the rest of the world to step up.
A month prior, in October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its special report on limiting warming to 1.5°C. The report will show more clearly than ever the truly transformative global action required to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and protect communities everywhere from the ravages of climate change.

The future has arrived
Each and every day, we are faced with harrowing examples of the real and present dangers of a warming world.

---

What is the NEG?

Malcolm Turnbull unveils his shiny new energy policy, complete with its own three-letter acronym. Here's what it all means.

---

From the severe drought crisis gripping rural Australia, to the heartbreaking damage to our Great Barrier Reef, the loss of land and homes to sea level rise and the devastating toll of more destructive storms and floods. The future has arrived.
At the same time, we learn all the time how stronger action on climate change, including the transformation of our energy systems, can deliver enormous benefits in terms of energy affordability, shared prosperity and reducing inequality.

There is a convenient truth — what works for the planet also works for people.

There is also a confronting truth that cannot be ignored. The real cost of failing on our responsibilities will be measured in further entrenched poverty — through the escalating impacts of climate change and humanitarian disasters, increasing hunger, and deaths and disease caused by pollution.

Energy policy divorced from climate impact
Nonetheless, debate on climate and energy policy in Australia has become largely divorced from the escalating impacts of climate change on communities worldwide, Australia's responsibility to end its climate pollution, and the myriad benefits of a renewable energy future.
When the nation's state energy ministers gather this Friday to decide the fate of the proposed NEG, they must keep in mind the bigger picture. Any Federal climate and energy policy must be capable of driving a swift and just transition to 100 per cent renewable energy, including moving rapidly beyond coal-fired power. It must ensure that the benefits and costs of action are distributed fairly, and above all ensure Australia steps up to its international responsibility to tackle climate change. Regrettably, in its current form, the NEG is severely lacking.
Much attention has rightly focussed on the inadequate emissions reduction target for the electricity sector.
Firstly, the target to reduce emissions from electricity by a mere 26 per cent by 2030 makes no sense in the context of Australia's current economy-wide target of 26-28 per cent by 2030, given that remissions reductions can be more easily achieved within the electricity sector than other sectors.
More importantly, Australia's current economy-wide target is itself a woefully inadequate contribution to the Paris Agreement. It is among the weakest of any advanced economy and utterly out of step with the long-term goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C — and will need to be stepped up as soon as possible.

Malcolm Turnbull announces plans for the Coalition to drop the Clean Energy Target (ABC News)

'Ambition mechanism' spurs some into action
Recognising that countries' initial contributions to the Paris Agreement would, in aggregate, fall well short of the scale and pace of action required, the Agreement includes an "ambition mechanism", designed to ensure that countries ratchet up their commitments over time.

---

What is the Paris Agreement?

Here's a simple explanation of the agreement, and what it means for Australia.

---

Encouragingly, following the lead of the Marshall Islands and Fiji, many countries including New Zealand, France, Germany, UK and Canada have already signalled that they will strengthen their contributions to the Paris Agreement before 2020.
In stark contrast, under the NEG, the Federal Government hopes to lock in Australia's current weak target for the electricity sector — its largest source of emissions — until at least 2024.
Such a move shows either a lack of understanding of Australia's responsibilities under the Paris Agreement, or a willingness to ignore them.
At a minimum, the NEG must set a far more ambitious target for electricity emissions from the outset, and have provisions for the target to be ramped up further in the near future.
Any less and it must be rejected.

*Dr Helen Szoke is Oxfam Australia's chief executive.

Links

• NEG will help cut power prices in most states and territories in the next decade, report finds
• How government inaction fuelled the renewables boom
• 'Frankenstein's monster': ACT won't support national energy plan in current form
• With Abbott and the Greens on the same side, a golden moment in politics beckons
• States give conditional support to National Energy Guarantee, but more talks to come