What election gridlock means for Australia's environmental policy

So, in all the election excitement, I lost my voice. But, never voiceless, I made do. Here, in illustrated format, What the election gridlock means for Australia's environmental policy. Best watched to The Pretenders, My city was gone.

For Environment Policy, the Senate will tip the balance

Following my Saturday night OD on dynamic duo Leigh Sales and Annabel Crabb, with intermittent doses of Kim Beazley and Peter Costello (what is going on with that hair, Peter?), I awoke with the rest of Australia to a cliffhanger and likely hung Parliament. 

This has made the task of writing something cogent on a Sunday morning even more difficult than would otherwise be the case. 

So, what does this election mean for environment policy?

Let’s consider the results. If you’re a statistician—and I happen to know a few—50/50 is considered a ratio of ‘maximum uncertainty’. It also often suggests you’re going to see regression to the mean. With Parliament in the balance, we are entering a period of instability, which is ironically opposed to the final campaign calls for stasis both parties asserted in the election campaign’s final week. For policies concerning the environment and Australia’s energy futures, this instability is most relevant in the Senate, where three wild-card ‘independents’ are likely to hold a considerable balance of power. While it’s difficult to say how things will play out—growing criticism around Malcolm Turnbull and outstanding results mean it remains unclear as to who will be leading Australia come Monday—the perspectives of these three candidates matter.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party is perhaps most concerning, as they remain wedded to a discourse of climate denial and mistrust of science. Their campaign website attempts ‘scientific’ claims to argue that “CO2 is natural”, so what’s all the fuss about?! They call the Paris Climate Pact the ‘un-pact’ —which, even with our high level of quality analysis, we cannot be certain is a typo or attempt at a pun. Most importantly, their ‘policies’ suggest that science is lying to us. From their own policy webpage, the One Nation Party states, "Paying a carbon tax or an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is not going to wave a magic wand and stop nature changing the climate change.” That’s right folks, there is no magic wand to ’stop nature changing the climate change’. In a nutshell, it appears One Nation will be likely to say, “ Who cares about climate change when there are so many scary migrants taking Australian jobs”. Maybe the end really is near.

Meanwhile,Human Headline Derryn Hinch will take up a Senate seat focused on ‘justice’. Unfortunately, the environment doesn’t get a look into his party’s priority policy areas. There is a brief mention of concern for ‘environmental justice’ in a media release. So, we are left guessing where this party will fall when it comes to taking decisions on environment and energy, but they have been surprisingly progressive on other issues, including gay marriage.

Finally, Jacqui Lambie has held her seat in Tasmania where the Jacqui Lambie Network party reports that they do believe in climate change. But they also, "don’t believe that just making Australian pensioners, businesses and families pay more for their energy [via an ETS or carbon tax] … will stop world Climate change.” But we can breathe a sigh of relief because the JNL “will not tolerate", ““[a] she’ll be right attitude’’, or a deliberate cover up (complacency or complicity) of the danger that an energy and fuel cost crisis will caused to our national interests.”

These are concerning stances in just one major policy area from three individuals who are likely to wield a considerable degree of influence. While the final results remain uncertain, it’s too early to suggest that climate and energy remain in the balance, so I’d recommend being alert, not alarmed. Until Monday.