In the months after the now famous Gonski review into school funding was released in 2012, I was genuinely surprised at the speed and scope of its influence in the community. In discussion groups of men and women, parents and grandparents mostly, I conducted in that year and beyond, the overwhelming sentiment was that the Gonski reforms should be implemented as soon as possible.
These people had not read much more than newspaper reports about the Gonski review – sometimes not even that. But they immediately understood what pressing issue Gonski was trying to address: the lack of funding to our schools, especially those schools (mostly public) where the need was greatest. Such a reform seemed long overdue.
It also seemed that in a time of toxic partisan politics, only a sage business leader could forge a reasonable path towards reform, to make an argument the electorate would support but the politicians seemed incapable of mounting. Gonski, in all its iterations, has now become part of the vernacular in our political dialogue, representing the triumph of common sense over complacency.
Since the Gonski review was first released, our politics has got worse not better and the community’s frustrations at the reform inertia in federal politics in particular have intensified. Given energy (security, cost and so on) regularly ranks in the top 10 issues we worry about, I wonder, could Finkel become the new Gonski?
In my role as a researcher, I’ve been hanging around all kinds of organisations, public and private, in the energy sector for some time, enough to know there is an orthodoxy that Australian consumers won’t accept measures to reduce carbon emissions if it means energy price will rise. People want cheap energy more than they want to save the planet, or so it goes. But the numbers in this week’s Essential Report paints a more complex picture.
In response to the question, “Would you support a clean energy target if it results in energy prices increasing,” 75% would support it if there was no change to prices (not a surprise, no pain for a lot of gain). But interestingly, 41% would continue to support such a target despite a 5% rise, a result which counters the orthodoxy about price rises and low emissions targets. If prices were to go up 10%, you have 21% still supporting a target with 21% neither supporting nor opposing.
None of this paints a picture of a community fully accepting of price hikes in energy to get to a green future but it doesn’t support the other view either: that Australians are absolutely opposed to price rises and that they refuse to outlay a dime for an energy future that is greener and less coal reliant. This in a country where leadership on climate change has been less than robust. This in the only country in the world that introduced a tax on carbon then got rid of it. It’s tempting to imagine what these numbers would look like if there was any leader out there arguing that we must accept higher prices to ensure a secure future free from the damaging effects of climate change.
The picture these numbers paint stand in stark contrast to the goings on in the government caucus, where Josh Frydenberg, the energy minister, has been performing a Sisyphus-like task trying to get his colleagues to accept the very measured Finkel review and its clean energy target. If newspaper reports are to be believed, only a third of the government caucus support Finkel’s recommendations.
The Essential Report shows that only 18% prefer coal-fired power plants to investment in renewables. Yet again, the electorate seem to be ahead of the people who purport to represent them in our parliaments. Australians aren’t caressing lumps of coal in their lounge rooms. They are doing the numbers, trying to work out if they can afford solar panels and battery storage in their garages.
Of course the Essential Report questions don’t reflect a consistent finding from the qualitative research I’ve done over the years in relation to energy prices and investment in renewables. Namely, that the community believes if governments were more committed to investment in new, green energy solutions that it would eventually result in cheaper and more secure energy prices for all.
The community commitment to renewables doesn’t just reflect attitudes to climate change. It reflects a certain pragmatism about what our options are in the future. Coal is a finite resource (the mining boom is winding down, isn’t it?). The sun is infinite (well, it has about 5bn years of shelf life to go). The safe bet is on the sun. And we have little respect for the politicians that gamble recklessly with our future.
