From the National Press Club: This week’s address by Dr Ken Henry, former Secretary of the Treasury, was not a love letter to the government, but a personal plea from a former senior bureaucrat turned environmental crusader. Henry’s address as chair of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation (ACBF), a registered charity and lobby group, called for reform of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC).
The call was largely based on Professor Graeme Samuel’s recent review of the EPBC Act that recommended the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) be applied on the basis of region-by-region rather than project-by-project.
Reported widely in the traditional media before the address was given, the seemingly simple message was lost when Net Zero became the panacea for all our productivity, revenue, housing, environmental, and economic problems.
Peel back the surface, and once regions are identified for development, wind, solar, and transmission projects will be greenlit, and residents will have little power to stop the ironic destruction of the environment to save the environment.
Henry was Secretary of the Treasury from 2001-11, with his tenure overlapping the Howard and Rudd-Gillard governments. His ‘Henry Review’ into taxation was one layer of three key economic reviews conducted since the 1990s. First, the Hilmer Report, looked at competition. Henry’s review then looked at taxation, and Professor Ian Harper’s 2014 review looked at productivity.
One of Henry’s messages was indisputable. Australian governments like to call for reviews rather than act. They then sell the review as action before ignoring the recommendations.
I asked Dr Henry about reform of the transport sector and why, if reducing carbon emissions was the point, was there not a focus on transport reform. Most of the transport sector reform recommendations from the Hilmer, Henry, and Harper reviews have not been implemented. According to December 2024 figures from the Department of Climate Change, the transport sector is responsible for 22 per cent of Australia’s carbon emissions.
My point was that most of our major transport assets have already been deployed. Multi-factor productivity, which includes efficient use of infrastructure, can be boosted by ‘sweating’ these existing assets. The bonus is that, unlike wind, solar, and transmission projects, we don’t need to destroy additional habitats to reduce emissions (if that is the goal).
I asked at what point was the focus on new wind and solar projects, which necessarily destroy habitats, about wind and solar and not about Net Zero.
Of course I did not receive an answer, but Henry suggested what I already knew. Their thinking was that once renewables were deployed, everyone would be driving EVs. That nobody wants to drive EVs never entered the thought pattern. Neither did the fact that wind and solar have proven to be the most expensive forms of energy.
What was not discussed was the ACDF’s support for the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, which was a failed attempt at another layer of bureaucracy designed to speed up wind and solar approvals.
While the usual cheer squad applauded Henry’s address, the majority of the questions went back to taxation and spending, two key issues that impact Australians directly every day. Never mind that any effort by Australia towards Net Zero is completely dwarfed by China’s increasing emissions.
The key message is that the push for Net Zero is not about the environment, but it is about wind and solar projects. If we were serious about Net Zero (for all its misgivings and pointlessness) and improving our economy, we’d have nuclear energy, transport reform, and a genuine focus on reducing government spending and reforming our taxation system.
Instead, we are being distracted by the hunt for the Net Zero unicorn as our productivity goes through the floor and Labor builds, brick by brick, the case to increase taxes.
While I was at the Press Club, Alexandra Marshall and I discussed Henry’s address on Spectator Australia TV. I was still trying to piece together what had just happened in the room. But on reflection, Henry’s address mirrored his previous calls to increase taxes to enable more government spending, particularly in relation to the environment. In his own words:
‘Of course we need a carbon tax.’
Enough said.
Dr Michael de Percy @FlaneurPolitiq is the Spectator Australia’s Canberra Press Gallery Correspondent. If you would like to support his writing, or read more of Michael, please visit his website.
