After the release of the Government’s Green Paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, there has been a great deal of opinion pieces popping up in various news publications. In this post I wanted to reflect upon the sources of these articles, the think-tanks who write and submit the articles, and their importance in the broader sphere of public policy debate.
The Government has released the latest Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) paper, and the newspapers have been full of commentary from political parties, non-government organisations and think tanks on both the left and right of politics. One of the strangest aspects in the whole debate has been that both the left and right leaning think-tanks have argued for the same thing, a carbon tax/levy, not an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
Though the arguments and motives differ greatly, it is strange to see such differing viewpoints come to the same conclusion. John Humphreys, research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), has argued in his article (“It’s time to have a debate about climate change“, the Australian, 18/02/2009) that the real problem with the issue, is that the Rudd Government has failed to properly debate the decision. CIS favour a carbon tax in which business is able to offset the financial burden by receiving tax cuts by acting in a green manner in other areas. They also worry about the possibility of favouritism or bias when permits are handed out. The clear agenda of their argument is, keep big business, particularly international business in Australia.
The Australian Institute’s Executive Director, Richard Denniss argues the case for a carbon tax on a much simpler basis. By going with an ETS, the ordinary householders efforts to reduce carbon emissions is wasted, as the cuts they make will allow big business to buy up the difference. Essentially, ETS can only guarantee a 5% drop, and the policy disables the ordinary person from reducing it further. For TAI, this is more of an issue of sustainability, and much less about trade and international markets.
In response, Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water, has tried to wedge the arguments of both left and right groups, positioning them as either environmentally or economically irresponsible. Interestingly enough, she attacks the Greens and the Coalition, not the pressure groups and think-tanks who fill up the editorial pages of the leading daily metropolitan newspapers.
To most readers, the author notes, attributing the article to the CIS or TAI, mean very little. Indeed they both read as neutral, independent and balanced. Penny Wong may find it useless to attack the arguments of think-tank groups, given that they have a low profile and aren’t necessarily identifiable with left or right ideology.
Kevin Rudd felt it was necessary to step on the front foot, recently attacking conservative, free-market think-tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) for being “the source of neo-liberalism” in Australia. The article in australian political magazine, The Monthly, played into the hands of the IPA, allowing them to use his comments as fuel to criticise his “neo-socialism” and “Whitlamism.” This is a debate Rudd would be ill-informed to continue, given the resources available to the IPA, as well as their extensive links with the world of big business.
Though ideological driven think-tanks may only effect a small minority of views in the voting population, it is impossible to deny how effective they are in moulding the context and framework of public debate. The brain power and expertise within the think-tanks is formidable, and they serve an important function of Democracy, the free exchange and debate of ideas. However, the credibility of the institutes are seriously undermined by the lack of transparency in regards to funding and financial backing. Articles which bare any relation to an issue affecting an organisation that funds an Institute should be disclosed.
It is a competitive field, and in a tight economic market, donations will only come from organisations who feel like they are getting bang for their buck. I fear that the global financial crisis will greatly reduce the ability of the think-tanks to write articles which fail to directly related to the core issues affecting the donor’s business. Such narrowing of the framework for public debate is a major loss to the market place of ideas and ultimately democracy.
