federal politics
26 May 2008
Be Wary, We're in Safe Hands
The newly appointed board of Infrastructure Australia is not the radical line up needed to rebuild Australia's post-carbon economy, writes Senator Christine Milne
The Rudd Government has made much, since well before coming to office, of its determination to unblock Australia's infrastructure bottlenecks and to tackle climate change.I have noted before that unless carefully managed, these two goals will come into direct conflict with each other to the long-term detriment of both. Unfortunately, the appointment of the board of Infrastructure Australia last week does not fill me with confidence that Rudd realises this.
In March, the Government passed enabling legislation for Infrastructure Australia which effectively sidelines the climate change and oil-use implications of infrastructure decisions. Under the legislation, Infrastructure Australia can only consider climate change at the direct request of the Minister.
Throughout the debate on the amendments I had proposed, which were rejected by both Labor and the Coalition, the Government assured the Senate that it took climate change seriously and that we should trust to their bona fides. As I said at the time, perhaps we should trust them, but that is hardly the point. Surely greenhouse implications should be an explicit and core responsibility of a body with a strategic overview of infrastructure. For an issue like climate change, goodwill is not enough.
With Labor having failed the first climate trust test by stretching out its already weak election promises in their first Budget, we need to very carefully consider how the newly announced board of Infrastructure Australia might advise the Government to act. This is particularly important, given the massive $20 billion ‘Building Australia Fund' the body now has to play with - with no climate strings attached.
In the Senate debate, Senator Conroy made much of the appointment, already announced, of Sir Rod Eddington to chair the new body. Conroy said that in his extensive experience in this area, Eddington "has always examined the climate issues and I do not think you will be disappointed this time. I hope that gives you some comfort".
While it must be remembered that Eddington's background is in the airline industry - a sector known for its skyrocketing emissions - and that he has also served as a Director of Rio Tinto, his recent experience in providing a strategic overview for infrastructure does make him well qualified for the position. However, the response of many respected Victorian sustainable transport experts to his report into Melbourne's transport needs does not, in fact, give me any comfort at all.
Indeed, given the legislative situation I described above, it is deeply troubling that, when pressed on the greenhouse implications of Eddington's Melbourne recommendations, a member of his team told The Age that "Sir Rod was not asked to address the greenhouse problem". If that is the approach he takes with this commission, we are all in serious trouble.
But what of the other members announced last Monday?
In summary, it is firmly skewed to those deeply rooted in the status quo.
With one stand-out sustainability expert and one stand-out voice for the coal sector, the majority are apparently reliable public servants and corporate types who will be 'safe hands'. This is valuable for ensuring that the pork-barrelling tendency of infrastructure projects is overcome, but a serious problem in terms of turning Australia around to rebuild for a post-carbon economy. The latter will require courageous and imaginative, out-of-the-box planning.
The appointment of Peter Newman to the board is welcome news. If anyone can provide this level of thinking, it is Professor Newman, the Director of the Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy at Murdoch University. Peter is thoroughly cognisant of the threats of climate change and peak oil and has well-developed ideas of how to reshape our infrastructure to deal with them. All power to him to convince his fellow appointees of his views.
Newman is balanced, however, by Ross Rolfe. Rolfe is more than just a Queensland Labor man, but his time as Coordinator General at the Premier's Department under Peter Beattie proved that he was no friend of the climate. In a two year hiatus between his directorship of the Department of Environment and Heritage and taking up the position at Premier's, Rolfe consulted for Chevron Asiatic, Powerlink Qld, the Minerals Council of Australia, Australian Premium Coals Pty Ltd and BHP Coal Division. Since leaving Premier's, he has been CEO of Queensland's coal giant, Stanwell Corporation, before joining Babcock and Brown. He is a coal man.
The five senior public servants are all respected achievers of the 'safe hands' variety, with Treasury's Ken Henry the only one I am aware of who might suggest some brave ideas. Terry Moran, the new secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Anthony Kannis of WA Treasury and Kerry Schott of Sydney Water are all pretty much guaranteed not to rock the boat. Jim Hallion, the new Chief Executive of the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, took a brave decision with the Adelaide to Darwin train line which does not appear to have paid off. Hopefully he will not be once bitten twice shy. Having come out of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, the minerals and energy promotion arm of South Australia's public sector, there is a risk he could swing for uranium.
The remaining four are a mixed bunch from the private sector.
Garry Weaven, as chairman of Industry Fund Management, has huge amounts of money to invest in infrastructure across the country. Weaven came out of the ACTU to be a very early entrant into industry super funds. Encouragingly, he has talked of the need for investment in renewable energy as part of the climate challenge.
Mark Birrell, chairman of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and a former Liberal Minister from Victoria, will do what he can to get the best deal for infrastructure providers. The fact that he warmly applauded Eddington's vision for Victoria and is a mouthpiece talking up the success of private public partnerships when the evidence is to the contrary is deeply troubling.
And finally, of course, Heather Ridout. Her impeccable industry credentials and restraint in last year's election have made her the go-to woman for the Rudd Government. Ridout is regarded as the 24th member of Cabinet - just witness Penny Wong's first speech on climate change delivered at the AIG. She wields tremendous power, it seems. Let's hope she can show some vision for the long-term benefit of the industry groups she represents.
I took the opportunity last week to write to all these 12 people, sending them a copy of the Senate debate and making sure they are aware of Senator Conroy's commitment that climate change will be "front and centre" and "one of the key considerations in the decisions [Infrastructure Australia] are going to make".
I assured them that I, like many others, will be watching to make sure that Infrastructure Australia helps, rather than hinders, the vital shift Australia needs to make in the coming decades to become a post-carbon economy.
We shall see the result soon enough.
This article has been edited for accuracy since it was published.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Infrastructure Australia, it already has a sound of another ‘useless beaurocratic body’ ring about it Christine. I would be worried about the way an amorphous body of disparate interests, focused on creating a ‘new infrastructure’ for ‘developing’ Australian ‘climate control’ is actually run.
The notion of ‘climate control’ itself has an insincere ring about it though- as this actually assumes that we have control over our climate, which we don’t.
What we do have control over is our Environment and that should be the key to all of the decision-making on developments and industries.
And the Environment we create does have an effect on the climate - but it does not actually control it.
However, you and I know there is nothing worse in this present climate than to remove carbon holding vegetation, especially that which has a long life - this is the real key in balancing our carbon emissions - with long life capture in long living plants - as well as fast growing plants to make up for lost time.
All the rest of the ideas presented will be either stop gap, too costly and/or inadequate in the long run - so you’ll just have to watch them waste our precious time and money on more useless policies that are promoted, but never meant to succeed - just there to appease the ‘greenies’ and to finally appeal to the developing and dangerously enveloping ‘climate change skeptics’ and ‘climate change buccaneers’ who are really only interested in their own short term gains.
Senator Milne complains that not enough emphasis is given in the terms of reference for Infrastructure Australia. Her comments carry the implication that policies in Australia can affect climate change. They cannot affect climate change itself although they can be seen to promote a wise global effort. Our emissions are a very small percentage of the global ones that have initiated climate change. Our politicians should be following the line put forward by the Australian Greenhouse Office and pursue policies to adapt to what is happening to our climate. Our politicians will surrender more credibility if they continue to espouse measures that are not realistic.
douglas jones
True Australia’s contributions to CO2-e is smal but our per head conribution is very high. Thus indicates a marked dependence on high energy use and perhaps use with low efficiency.
In the talky feast of climate change if we are really concerned and not with playing winners and losers this is a gghod argumentaive target for excusing one’s own tardy performance. Still make a profit still says one is legal and moral cooperation is very much ouyt of fashion. So role on our competitive infra structure Australia may your efforts exceed those elswhere.
denisaf,whether Australia’s contribution to greenhouse gases is small is not really the point.We have to consider our own longer term national interest as a priority.The methods we need to use to tackle global warming are also the methods we need to build a sustainable Australia.If that is not in our national interest I don’t know what is.
Secondly,as a developed and supposedly enlightened nation we should be leading the way in practical solutions,not just signing protocols etc.This process has to be led by the western democracies if it is to go anywhere.
Thirdly,if we continue with business as usual,which is basicly the intention of this government and it’s big business/big union lobby then we will be unable to adapt to the catastrophic changes in our environment.
The fear of change in what passes for leadership in this country is quite startling,to say the least.In a lot of cases it simply boils down to greed and stupidity - same old,same old reliable human attributes.
Fourthly,even if climate change turn out to the greatest furphy of all time none of the worthwhile proposed solutions will result in any permanent harm to this country.I am sorry to have to tell you,denisaf,that doing nothing will almost certainly result in great harm.
thirra, I agree with almost all that you have to say. But nowhere have I advocated doing nothing. Where did you get that idea? I advocated the politicians espouse the reality, not tell us that we can achieve the impossible by changing our habits. There are many good reasons to be more frugal in our use of energy, as you point out. They should say that rather than suggest that we can stop climate change. They lose credibility when they show that they do not understand reality. How can we be seen to be providing leadership when it is based on a false premise.
The time of responsible government is over - it’s history. The only way the ‘infrastructure’ of Australia will ever become more climate and environmentally friendly (and responsible) is if the market forces (that rule supreme) allow them too.
It’s all about production and profit, nothing else matters because in the big picture all governments (local councils being the least responsible and most to blame) are for (approve) unsuitable and unsustainable developments and industries.
Governments respond to most issues from a human perspectiveonly and then only in economic terms. Forget animal and land rights and old trees, it’s as if governments conveniently choose to believe the environment will take as much destruction and abuse as we’re prerpared to give it and it will bounce back no matter what. Or we’ll learn to adapt, just like we have through all the other cataclysmic and catastrophic natural events and disasters in our past.
This is gambling with ours and the planet’s futures and a very selfish way to act (or not act) and could be the demise of not just our species but the majority of the larger mammals on this planet.
Or alternatively it could also mean a slide back into the Dark Ages when the horse and cart were the predominant form of transport, unless we find a non-carbon based fuel to use in our transport vehicles.
Not such a bad idea as horse shit is very good garden manure.
Our elected Government seems to be distracted by the Oppositions idiot proposals regarding lowering of the petrol tax, and seems determined to more or less match that inevitably futile offer rather than doing the job that it has been elected to do.
The fact is that in the not too distant future it will not be the price of petrol that we are worried about, it will be the fact that adequate supplies of petrol fuel are not available at any price.
The bottom line for Infrastructure Australia is that it should be considering what infrastructure provisions are required to prepare us for a time where fuel prices severely restrict mobility in sprawling cities, and make extensive interstate road transport impracticable.
This suggests that our infrastructure needs do not centre about major road programmes, either within or between cities.
Priority must be given to public transport systems which provide not only transport to the CBD, but transport within and between suburban areas.
Rail must become the preferred method of movement of goods between states and over long distances within states. Rather than a major new Melbourne to Brisbane line, perhaps Infrastructure Australia should look at the causes of bottlenecks in transporting freight on existing lines, which might involve separating freight and passenger rail in major cities, and developing rail heads which can quickly load and unload freight trains.
Increased fuel prices will encourage a gradual transition from heavy fuel using vehicles to fuel efficient vehicles. Unfortunately the number of SUVs and "full size" passenger vehicles still being bought suggest that there are a lot of people who do not understand the reality of the situation, and who prefer to complain rather than take action that will ease their situation.
Likewise the vast amount that Governments are still spending on underpasses, overpasses, road widening and the like suggest that although Governments are prepared to mouth the message about global warming, and wring their hands about the increasing cost of petrol, they believe neither in the reality of global warming, or the diminishing world oil resources. Glen
singha99 makes some very good points about transportation. What is missing in all these discussions is the nature of the holistic problem. The operations of industrial civilization entail irreversibly using up limited natural capital, including the exhaustible supply of oil and a balanced climate. Understanding that reality would make it easier to come up with measures to adapt to what civilization has done to the ecosystem.
The worst aspect of the latest rises in the price of fuel is that it is irreversible due to diminishing resources and increased demand.
Governments go on about ‘market forces’ doing their thing and then promptly want to interfere, creating an artificial ‘protectionist’ market.
They can’t have it both ways - they either use their power for subsidies and tax reductions to reduce some of the burden ( and admit they are giving consumers a false sense of security about the future) or they and consumers just accept the reality of what the ‘market forces’ are telling us about these fossil fuels - that they are running out - and even if they were’nt, burning them is so detrimental to the atmosphere and the environment that we’d better start developing viable alternative energy sources sooner, rather than later - which could already be too late for many species due to there already being a noticable change in climate in many vulnerable regions on Earth.
Big yes from Rudd govt in the federal budget to uphold ALL their election promises against expert economic advice about inflation risks. All yes. But that’s cramped their style on petrol price flexibility so Rudd accurately states they can’t do more largesse on such as petrol price in this budget. That’s a real no. A serious no. A govt that is sidling up to the notion of being a real govt that can say no.
And the fact Rudd can’t micro manage every issue gives me heart he doesn’t think he can over work his way through everything, which is a one way street to an early grave for the bloke and his prime ministership.
Otherwise we have a pleaser who is spineless, and a real "attractive jellyfish" to cross reference the every person segment on Insiders last Sunday.
Having said all that, more power to Senator Milne here (or her speech writer??, not slouches either of them!).
The senator is spot on about the two major parties hitting the wall with their 20C political economic mindset around old style economic growth fetishism. Not least a $5 billion (not so) secret truck tunnel in Sydney from Port Botany to a M4 east tollway to double then triple the shipping container imports into Sydney - full of highly greenhouse embedded junk from Asia etc. A construction industry wet dream but totally against our sustainable transport and lifestyle future.
It ain’t gonna work ALP/Coalition fellas (gender neutral) this 21C, this year in fact. It’s been a long run on this oil track but it’s drawing to a close to a close now. The Greens have been on the right track all this time and God bless their infusion of sustainability thinking all along the left right political spectrum. Keep going!
Australia’s contribution to climate change is NOT small, denisaf.
Apart from being profligate users of fossil fuels at a personal level, we are the largest exporters of coal in the world. And coal is the biggest contributor to global warming. We could do something about that, but greed will always triumph, it seems.
On climate change, we are running out of time. Indeed, it probably is already too late, even if overnight we were able to decrease emissions worldwide. Of course, that won’t happen. Rather, CO2 and methane emissions are rising exponentially, the Antarctic and Arctic ice is rapidly disintegrating and glaciers are rapidly melting, the sea is turning acidic and Australia and much of the world is running out of water. Our River Murray is dying, and not just from overuse. The real problem is climate change. The future for my grandchildren looks very bleak. Meanwhile, deniers like yourself are doing your best to stop those who care from doing something about it.
ros06
What an absurd comments of yours. I have been a strong advocate of action along the lines of what you suggest for years. What makes you think I am a denier - of what? Yes, we are profligate users of fossil fuels per capita and we should power down. But our emissions are less that 2% of the global rate. We could stop emitting and it would make no difference. That is the reality. Yes, coal is the biggest contributor to global warming and we do export a lot of coal. We should do our utmost to encourage global reductions in the rate of emissions.
I will point out that I have written an essay entitled ‘What went wrong’ the misdirection of civilization’ that establishes that the operations of industrial civilization has irreversibly depredated the limited available natural capital. That includes using up the limited store of fossil fuels and initiating climate change. Yet you somehow presume I am a denier!
denisaf - it’s not just the limitation of carbon-based, fossil fuels and natural energy resources, but what the burning of those resources is doing to the biosphere.
There should be a ‘biosphere tax’ on all mass emitters of CO2, to re-establish environmental integrity to the biosphere - reduce emissions or pay the cost.
Obviously we can’t completely reverse the environmental and atmospheric degradation by magically bringing back all the old growth rainforests this island- continent once supported, but we could at least make an attempt to replace as much of them as possible, so future generations will have the opportunity to breathe fresh air, enjoy the sounds of the birdlife and other natural wonders these vitally important forests support.
denise
The point I make in ‘What went wrong?’ is that the operation of civilization entails the irreversible depredation of natural capital. That includes all the components you mention. My aim is to provide understanding of what the operations of industrial civilization has done to its life support system. Hopefully that understanding will lead to the type of measures you mention - and many others that will ease the powering down that future generations will have to do. Unfortunately, civilization has already done appreciable, irrevocable damage to the environment.
denisaf - your ideas sound very complex and intriguing - why don’t you write a book to explain yourself a bit better.
Christine is right on the mark here. This independant body should be looking at the aArts and theEnvironment and a whole suite of other things. It isnt though. This proves Rudd is no better than Howard. We need a Greens government.