File Under: Hypocrisy
A conscience vote for a new climate change commission would defy parliamentary tradition and the electorate’s wishes. By Tim James.
Warringah MP Zali Steggall says we must end the “climate wars” by allowing a conscience vote on her climate change private members Bill.
She is campaigning for a conscience vote before the Bill is introduced in one month. There’s plenty of hypocrisy in the positioning and intended process on this. Consider some facts and it soon becomes clear that calls for a conscience vote are not driven by conscience but politics.
Firstly, a little background. The Steggall Bill sets out a range of requirements which she says represent a “framework” for plans, monitoring and reporting on climate change. Among other things, it sets a target of net zero emissions by 2050, creates an “independent” climate change commission to set carbon budgets and plans, requires government to explain any departures from the recommendations of that commission, and sets out principles by which Australia should be bound to international negotiations. The commission would also have the power to review and report on government policy with no referral by the Minister.
There’s a lot in this 47-page Bill. It is much more than a mere “framework”. It’s not surprising that Ms Steggall should seek to force her ideological position on Parliament and the nation. After all, she constantly says we’re in a climate emergency, calls for people (including schoolchildren) to attend climate strikes and has effectively made climate change her raison d’etre.
The term “conscience vote” is most commonly used in Australia to describe votes on moral and social issues such as abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment. In other words, life and death issues. There were five conscience votes during the 11 years of the Howard Government – each with deep moral resonance (euthanasia, embryo research, RU486 and two on human cloning).
Does a framework for climate change policy and new commission to oversee carry the same gravitas?
Steggall’s call for a conscience vote fails on two further fundamentals. Conscience votes are not usually allowed on economic issues or issues that have a significant impact on the budget. This framework and target would massively reshape Australia’s economy and affect the budget bottom line a big way. Moreover, conscience votes are generally not allowed when a party has a definite policy on an issue. And there’s no doubt that a national emissions reductions target and related measures are a matter of party policy.
The hypocrisy here is too much to bear. Less than a year after Steggall and her supporters insisted the May 2019 election was the #climateelection they now say that climate policy needs to be put back into the hands of the people.
The election result was clear: Labor and the climate change activists lost. Yes, Steggall won Warringah after declaring war on Tony Abbott over climate change (note she now says it’s time to end the war on climate change). But one independent winning a seat does not counter the national swing in the opposite direction.
There’s a Brexit parallel here. The people have spoken, but like the remainers in Britain Steggall believes they got it wrong. So now she says the people need to be heard again, but with a different mechanism – a conscience vote.
The hypocrisy of the Warringah MP is laid bare when she says the “climate wars” must be put to rest so the nation can move forward with a new decade of action. But we can only move forward on her terms.
“Steggall wants to override the public’s view, good policy and even parliamentary process.”
Steggall has declared war on this Government over climate change. She wants us to believe it is a do-nothing, deadlocked government. Never mind that we are meeting our international commitments, halving our emissions per capita by 2030 and showing extraordinary growth in clean energy investment per capita. And never mind that Energy Minister Angus Taylor has made it clear the Government is developing a long-term emissions reductions strategy, which will be announced this year. The Government’s stated focus is what is logical and achievable for Australia as compared to Steggall’s ideological zeal.
Steggall wants to override the public’s view, good policy and even parliamentary process.
Ironically, the Bill would take climate policy further away from the parliament and the people and put power into the hands of an “independent” climate change commission to set budgets and plans. How that commission would be accountable to the people in our democratic system isn’t clear. And the commission would effectively play watchdog over the government. So much for “putting this in the hands of the people”. The Steggall Bill would have the opposite effect.
Steggall’s #climateactnow campaign and calls for a conscience vote are inconsistent, hypocritical and hyperbolic. It’s a triumph of self-interest over conscience and the public good. There should be no conscience vote and Steggall should let the elected government govern consistent with its mandate.