As parliament debates Australia’s response to climate change, business looks on with trepidation - unsure whether to invest in umbrellas or sunhats. Leadership is required.
On the fiercely debated topic of climate change only one thing is certain – even the weakest carbon trading legislation will require an adjustment to the way organisations do business in Australia.
Those organisations that monitor future policies, prepare contingency plans in advance, and act early are the most likely to survive the added costs, and to identify and take advantage of the opportunities that will arise. However with so much uncertainty regarding Australia’s approach, any investment in developing strategies at this stage is a gamble. Business needs certainty as a foundation for planning, particularly for long term capital investment. This certainty is something that can only be achieved through bipartisan agreement in Canberra.
I was part of the web-broadcasting team at the UNFCCC conference in Montreal in 2005 and find it disappointing that many of the initiatives proposed are still being debated with little evidence of further maturation. Within Australia progress has been blocked because the federal opposition has been unable to reach to an internal consensus. This vacillation is based on the contention that it would be foolish for Australia to establish a policy in isolation; before seeing those put forward by other countries at the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen in December this year.
With the completion of the Garnaut Review, and the government’s ETS bill, there is sufficient information to model the effects of different policies on the environment and on the economy. The opposition owes it to Australian businesses to work with the government to set goals that best address both our economic interests and our responsibilities to the environment.
To attend a meeting without first defining the desired outcome is to abdicate decision making on content of the agenda and to leave the outcome to chance.
It is a valid argument that setting policies now does create an element of risk, but more importantly it will allow us to choose our ground and to lead other countries by example. Not doing so enables us to avoid a commitment and adjust our approach in response to other countries but equally exposes us to the risk that Australia’s voice, lacking in confidence and unsupported by action, will be lost in the hubbub. Australia is only a middle power and not influential enough to play the waiting game.
Surely now is the time for the opposition to show support for their embattled leader on this policy and to set a national direction ahead of the conference. This will give business time to plan and ensure that Australian interests are heard in Copenhagen.
Brendan Ridge is a Senior Consultant with Calibre. Individuals’ views may not necessarily reflect those of Calibre.
