Kevin Rudd - Minister for Climate Change AND Energy

A few days back The Australian newspaper reported on rumours that the government was considering shutting the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

As part of those reports “senior government sources” said it would not be merged with the Department of Environment. But of course there is another option – and one that would make an awful lot of sense: merge climate change and energy; and spin off resources and tourism into their own department. 

Martin Ferguson would give up the energy portfolio and Greg Combet, or perhaps, as Mark Latham suggested in the Quarterly Essay, Kevin Rudd would pick up responsibility for domestic energy, as well as climate change.

Ferguson as the Minister for Resources would continue to retain responsibility for digging, drilling and shipping out coal, gas and oil. But he would no longer hold responsibility for things like energy market design and regulation, and energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. For the most part companies are perfectly capable of finding and extracting fossil fuel energy resources without the need to closely co-ordinate it with the domestic electricity, gas and transport fuel markets. 

However, addressing climate change is at its core an energy problem. Human beings aren’t about to give up plentiful energy supply and the way of life it can support. So we need to find a way to use that energy more efficiently and get it from cleaner sources. If we can pull that off we are four-fifths of the way to avoiding dangerous climate change. 

Having energy and climate change in separate departments with separate ministers, especially when one of those ministers is explicitly tasked with expanding Australia’s production of fossil fuels, leads to unproductive conflict.

I recall when I worked at the Howard government’s Australian Greenhouse Office that we used to talk in hushed tones of the evil that was “ITR” (the acronym for the prior iteration of the Department of Resources Energy and Tourism – which now has the acronym of DRET). The two departments would regularly fight over responsibility for programs in energy efficiency and clean energy technology and this split brain continues to today. 

As an example, one has to ask why on earth the Australian Renewable Energy Agency reports to Ferguson. He has publicly expressed doubt about both climate change and the capacity of renewable energy to make a major difference to our energy supply. The only reason I can fathom is that DRET claimed ARENA as theirs because they are responsible for energy and there’s the word ‘energy’ in ARENA.

Ferguson is passionate about developing Australia’s resources industry as a source of jobs and economic wealth, but he doesn’t share that same passion for renewable energy or addressing climate change. He should be left to do what he does best.

Interestingly, the former secretary for the Department of Climate Change, Blair Comley, has just taken up the role of secretary of the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. If Comley can be trusted with energy and separately with climate change, why on earth not both together when the two are integrally linked? Now would be a very good time to merge the two with Comley in charge as Secretary.

As for Mark Latham’s thought bubble of appointing Rudd as minister for climate change – it actually makes a lot of sense. I doubt that anyone else would be as effective as Rudd in taking the fight to Tony Abbott on his carbon tax scare campaign. 

If you watch the ABC’s Q&A program where Rudd spills the beans on how the emissions trading scheme was dropped, it’s clear he bitterly regretted that decision. As defender-in-chief of the carbon price, Kevin Rudd would have little difficulty attracting the media air necessary to completely debunk all the Henny Penny rubbish spouted by Abbott.

At the same time it would keep him busy doing something productive for Labor rather than destabilising Gillard. What Rudd ultimately wants is the limelight. In an election Abbott has billed as a referendum on the carbon price, Rudd will feel like he’s the leader in assuming the role of carbon price defender-in-chief.

Also with Rudd given such a prominent role, it might serve in some way to correct an injustice perceived by those voters disappointed with the nature of his sacking. Although it would probably require the simultaneous dumping of Wayne Swan as Treasurer to serve as a sacrificial lamb of contrition. 

Conveniently it is those voters in Queensland and Western Sydney marginal seats disappointed with Rudd’s sacking who have also been duped by the carbon tax scare campaign. There is a faint hope they might actually listen to Kevin Rudd on this topic, where they have taken the word of tabloids and shock jocks over Combet and Gillard.

It’s highly unlikely this will save Labor but by merging climate change and energy policy, Labor might leave a lasting and useful legacy.