Infrastructure Australia on collision course with climate credibility
March 20, 2008 by Christine Milne
With the Infrastructure Australia Bill having passed the Senate in its original form this morning, this article from me discussing its implications was published in New Matilda today.
You can read the full Senate debate here.
Two of the Rudd Government’s key election promises - establishing Infrastructure Australia and tackling climate change - have been set on a collision course in the Senate this week. By putting its foot on the accelerator and the brake at the same time, the Government is destined for engine failure.
It didn’t have to be this way. Infrastructure Australia, a body to oversee a strategic approach to infrastructure development, is an excellent idea. As well as helping to prevent future marginal-seat pork-barrelling on roads, it could provide a much needed and coherent vision for Australia’s development to replace the existing piecemeal, unplanned mess.
The infrastructure path we choose will, of course, have a tremendous impact on which direction our greenhouse emissions head in: the coal and road-focussed path will see emissions continue to rise; while a path prioritising renewable energy, the roll-out of energy efficiency infrastructure and effective mass transit will see our emissions finally peak and start to drop.
It would have been appropriate for a Government that was elected on a platform of climate change action to make one of the central tasks of Infrastructure Australia ensuring that our infrastructure development drives a low emissions trajectory and reduced dependence on oil. The enabling legislation could have put an examination of greenhouse implications of infrastructure choices at the centre of the new body’s responsibilities, and populated it with appropriate experts. This would have ensured that the strategic infrastructure overview it provided was not only in line with, but effectively reinforced, the emissions reduction programs the Government introduced.
Unfortunately, this is not the approach the Rudd Government has taken. Instead, Infrastructure Australia will undermine the Government’s stated aim of reducing greenhouse emissions.
The Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 that came before the Senate on Wednesday sets out an array of the “primary” and “additional functions” of the body. The primary functions are to provide advice to the Minister, all Australian governments, owners of and investors in infrastructure in relation to such issues as “Australia’s current and future needs and priorities”, “policies, pricing and regulatory issues”, and “impediments to effective utilisation of infrastructure”.
In addition, the body will conduct audits of nationally significant infrastructure, provide advice on policies and laws relating to development of, and investment in, infrastructure, identify any impediments to investment, and finally, provide advice on infrastructure policy issues arising from climate change.
The Bill splits these “additional functions” functions into those that Infrastructure Australia is to perform either “if it thinks fit; or on request by the Minister” and those it is to perform only “on request by the Minister”.
Now here’s the rub. While all “primary functions” and about half of the “additional functions” are put into the first category, the “additional function” relating to climate change is specifically relegated to the second. In other words, Infrastructure Australia can only “provide advice on infrastructure policy issues arising from climate change” when specifically requested to do so by the Minister.
So the Government is establishing a body to oversee a policy area with arguably the largest and longest-term impact on our greenhouse emissions trajectory, and it is explicitly removing that body’s discretion to examine the climate implications of infrastructure decisions - leaving that to the whim of the Minister. The Government will now use that power to guarantee that the greenhouse implications of expanded coal port facilities, new freeways and tunnels and public/private partnerships that they support are swept under the carpet.
In an attempt to fix this problem and put climate change (and peak oil) at the heart of Infrastructure Australia’s considerations, I moved an amendment that would have replaced the “additional function” related to climate change with a “primary function” of advising on the “greenhouse gas emission and oil consumption implications of any development”. After an extensive and frustrating debate - in which the Government revealed how little it cared by leaving the debate in the hands of a succession of four barely adequately briefed Ministers - Labor, the Coalition and Family First closed ranks to reject my amendment, which was supported only by the Greens and Democrats.
Now, it could be argued, as Democrats Leader Lyn Allison raised, that the use of the phrase “infrastructure policy issues arising from climate change” [emphasis added] limits the application of that paragraph to infrastructure issues related to climate change impacts such as rising sea levels. This could make the situation even worse, excluding any examination of greenhouse emissions implications at all.
On the other hand, it could be argued that, by only removing the discretionary power to look at climate change impacts, the Bill implicitly allows Infrastructure Australia to examine greenhouse emissions implications through the “primary function” of advising on “Australia’s current and future needs and priorities”.
It could even be argued, as the Government sought to do in the debate my amendments triggered, that we should just trust the Government. Of course the Minister will refer the issue. Of course the Government takes climate change seriously. Don’t worry, we’ll take care of it.
All these could be argued. Perhaps Infrastructure Australia will have the discretion to look at greenhouse issues. Perhaps the Minister will take care of it.
But that is hardly the point.
Surely climate change and greenhouse emissions implications should be an explicit and core responsibility of a body with a strategic overview of infrastructure. For an issue like climate change, “perhaps” is not enough. Reading in implicit discretionary powers, or trusting to Ministerial discretion, is not enough. In a political context where the coal and roads lobbies still wield so much power and, indeed, are more than likely to be strongly represented in the membership of Infrastructure Australia, and where Labor is sticking to its election road pork-barrel promises, the community can have little hope that their trust will be justified.
With this Bill, the Rudd Government has, deliberately or inadvertently, missed a tremendous opportunity, and has instead created a rod for its own back. If it is serious about climate change, it would be well advised to recall the Bill and amend it rather than sit back and watch as two of its supposed priorities collide.
Climate change is accelerating so rapidly, we have no time for political games.
This would have been a good opportunity for the ALP to show they really understand the role of Governments in the how they can influence demand (Keynesian style) to affect a desirable outcome.
I’m not sure that the message about how our current lifestyle ensures energy and resource wastage and hence GHG emissions got through. From what I can see the Liberal, National and FF people seem to believe that demand is fixed forever and that drastic changes in supply are the only way to affect the changes in GHG emissions that we desire.
However, just as an example, if we were to build communities that were mostly self-sustaining in their primary resource usage (i.e. food, water, housing, etc.) and then locally exported specialities and imported other specialities, then the need to wait in a car in traffic for hours to commute to a city 20-30km away would be drastically reduced.
It is this community infrastructure that determines how people live, that is where they work, shop and socialise.
My reading of this bill leads me to believe that this advisory body will primarily listen to those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, making it all that much harder to make important decisions about our future environment in general (not just GHG emissions).
So, in summary, a wasted opportunity.
“With this Bill, the Rudd Government has, deliberately or inadvertently, missed a tremendous opportunity”
OK, initially you might have assumed an oversight, but what motive is behind rejecting the Greens amendment?
The fact that this ALP government voted with the coalition and the family first party against the amendments indicates that the ethos is a deliberate omission.
Again, proof positive that until the reliance on resource and commodity derived economics and the dance macabre with the sisyphus bride of ‘big industry’ finally winds down to a point of moment where redirection is possible, we are stuck with “political solutions”. (those solutions which you must have if you don’t wish to actually solve the problems)
My personal interest is in the energy sector post the Guarnot recommendations.
If the Energy industry is able to accept increased feed in tariffs across the board, cater to and provide incentive for point of use micro energy systems (ie. small solar urban & wind power systems) it is feasible that the new decentralised renewable POU industry can take up the lions share of urban expansion requirements.
This will make further expansion of coal derived base load systems redundant and shoot a big fat hole in the nuclear industries greatest hope for proliferation both here & close by.
A beginning in good faith for a healthier future might include photovoltaics for all new low income housing developments as a mandatory requirement, providing cut price energy for those that will be hurt most by the measures which must come if we are to make it over the rise. (in CO2 emissions)
We might then also concentrate on the encouragement of efficient public transport, all electric city commuters and penalties for the use of those ridiculous great 4 wheel drives and v8 muscle cars in urban areas.
To my mind, Infrastructure = roads, buildings, public transport (including air), utilities and public services.
It does not include CEO’s of major corporations and quarterly or long term profit forecasts for entities which will not change their practices unless made to do so.
I am hoping that if given a second term the Rudd government may start to place greater pressure on big industry to comply, having whoo’d them all and reassured the poor delicate and frightened dears that the world is indeed round and there are other ways to compensate.
Unfortunately without a good solid framework in place, such as would be ensured by the amendment that Christine proposed we will all be at the mercy of power without controls, power biased by short term profit motives and an antipathy to change.
Just an aside here, it is always not surprising that the F1 party votes against the Greens suggested amendments.
Especially when one considers that their basic codex is derived from a conservative evangelist / brethren style bias, which has decided that anything ‘green’ related is the devils work. Remember these are the good folk immersed in a fundamentalist culture which brings “creation” science to the climate change debate.
The F1 party is a known quantity, you could assume that they will ALWAYS vote against Green proposals. (Unless infiltrated by some very clever pagans)
The coalition however are a different kettle and may yet become the greatest allies for the Greens in their attempts to ensure this government brings integrity as well as hollow rhetoric to the climate change decisions table.
“This will make further expansion of coal derived base load systems redundant and shoot a big fat hole in the nuclear industries greatest hope for proliferation both here & close by.”
Couldn’t agree more.
We need not be as reluctant as we seem to be to take this opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of the Australian nuclear power generation industry BEFORE it gets too big and strong to kill.
I feel you went too far with your amendments. You may have been better off just sticking with the first one (green house gas and oil consumption implications of a development being a primary function), and making it a requirement that all advice by Infrastructure Australia be published on its website (unless it would compromise national security), rather than calling for all large infrastructure projects being referred to a standing committee (for the minor parties and opposition to dissect).
The inference that I draw from the bills definition of “nationally significant infrastructure” and its linkage to improved productivity is that public transport is of little benefit in itself. In national productivity terms: the time it takes to commute to work is of no consequence, provided that workers don’t turn up fatigued; and the major benefit of getting people to switch from their cars to public transport is that trucks (business) can move faster. An amendment wouldn’t have gone astray here.
Lets face it, the primary purpose of Infrastructure Australia will be to assist growth, and perpetual growth in the consumption of resources is unsustainable. This is where the Greens should be fighting.
Scientific American outline a bold plan to move the US to renewable energy by 2050 here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
They say US$400B subsidy is required. Scaling down to Australian terms this is in the vicinity of AU$30B. Sounds strangely affordable :)
Zoltar says:
Lets face it, the primary purpose of Infrastructure Australia will be to assist growth, and perpetual growth in the consumption of resources is unsustainable. This is where the Greens should be fighting.
I think you are absolutely correct in your definition of Infrastructure Australia’s role.
The timing and structure of the creature makes it purpose designed to ensure that new shipping port proposals are unencumbered by environmental concerns.
One of the problems facing our government is how best to ensure the maximum economic benefit from exploitation of our Natural reserve. We have ships backed up all along the Australian coast, creating risk to contract guarantees of export supply and bottle necking future National income.
The ‘Infrastructure Australia’ bill looks to be designed to help resolve this issue. A can of logistical grease as it where.
The observation that the process of natural resource exploitation is unsustainable is moot. We have already sold the Iron and coal and gas and all, we need to ensure however that due diligence is maintained and a code of conduct aggressively prosecuted to limit the worst immediate environmental degradation and hopefully mitigate some of the future impacts.
We need to ensure that the resource industry and the Government of the day don’t forget everything else while greasing the rails for the unfettered progress in the free for all big biz melai that is upon us.