Climate Change Bill: Much Ado About Nothing.

[A]

Yesterday was the first sitting day of the 47th Australian Parliament. In the lead up the usual suspects opinionators were hyperventilating in public, as they busily urged the Greens in the Senate – and David Pocock, I suppose – to approve the so-called Climate Change Bill 2022.

They were not alone. Labor environmental activists had been shaking their fists at the Greens before. Won’t somebody please think of the children!

Such dramatic urgency seemed a bit strange – to me. I mean, why a Bill that was virtually unknown to the public – even its precise title was uncertain, for Christ’s sake! – could be deemed so vital? Did they know something I didn’t?

Well, yesterday Chris Bowen, federal Minister for Climate Change, tabled the Bill (together with a “Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022”). Finally one can read its current draft here (the CCCA Bill is here).

What I found didn’t surprise me. My reading of it is that it is essentially symbolic: it adds little of substance and what little it adds could be misused by a future Government. The Bill provides for an annual statement by the Minister on how national climate policy is doing and how it meets Oz’s international commitments. This is an addition and is done in the name of accountability. But what happens if the public deems the performance unsatisfactory? The Bill does not provide for that case. So much for accountability.

The Minister will be aided by the Climate Change Authority, which every five years will also update Aussie National Determined Commitments, but the Minister is free to reject updated targets, partially or entirely. Oh, well, we are sure, absolutely sure that neither Peter Dutton nor Matt Taliban will ever be PM, right?

----------

The Bill seems to be primarily addressed to the business sector: they can take climate action into account in their decision making process. But if even a grunt like me can see the Bill has no teeth, won’t business people notice that? If the Bill affords no guarantee of continuity, won’t business people notice that as well?

A secondary objective is to the tell the Aussie voter “we are doing something about climate change”.

----------

That the Bill was of little practical importance was made clear by Bowen himself yesterday, when Michael Rowland interviewed him for the ABC’s News Breakfast. Asked by Rowland (“If you don’t get anywhere with the Greens, the Government would be prepared to walk away from the climate bill, is that correct?”), this was Bowen’s answer:

Look, we’ve been very clear: this legislation is not essential. It’s desirable, it’s best practice. We’ve already notified the UN of our target. We can, if you like to use those terms, walk away, is not essential. But that’s not our intention. Our intention is to work co-operatively across the Parliament for good climate laws. That’s our intention. We’re happy to do that. We’ve introduced - I’m introducing the bill today. That’s what we’ll be arguing for in the Parliament. That’s what we’ll be seeking to pass. We’re getting on with it anyway. We’ve been very clear from opposition. I said this, you know, on the ABC, when I was Shadow Minister for Climate Change. We don’t need this legislation but it’s best practice and that’s why we believe as a government Australia should be best practice. The Australian people voted for action on climate change and I think this is a really important opportunity for the Parliament as a whole to show the people we all got the memo, we’re acting on climate change.

----------

But you don’t trust me. Fine. Trust John Quiggin (University of Queensland) instead.

If I were a devout Catholic – used to light candles to my favourite saints – and Quiggin were a Catholic saint, I wouldn’t light candles to him. But even Quiggin can see that the Bill is basically symbolic and should be given some substance: say the “climate trigger”.

Listen to him, VSP of Australia. He is one of you.

----------

Let me ask you, Leith, Feyi and Kate: do you guys know the meaning of the word “ultracrepidarian”? I ask because I am sure Marc has never heard that word. Don’t worry, I’m not implying you are extremely creepy or that you eat too many crêpes.

Think about that meaning and while you are at it, do us all a big favour: if you really, really cannot control yourself and need to speak of things you know nothing about, avoid at least obnoxious commonplaces, like “making the perfect the enemy of the good”.

Image Credits:
[A] Broken heart sewn back together. Author: Tim Houlihan. Source: WikiMedia. File licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Nobody endorses me or the use I make of this file.