The Teal-Green conundrum: what will it mean for jobs, cost of living?
It is possible that the political activities and business affairs of Climate 200 founder Simon Holmes a Court are quite separate. But, given the fact Mr Holmes a Court’s financial interests would be directly affected by the success of the raft of candidates he is supporting through a co-ordinated campaign in the federal election, there should be no doubts about where the politics stops and financial opportunity begins.
It is no secret Mr Holmes a Court has teamed up with fellow businessman Mike Cannon-Brookes and former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull to agitate politically for stronger action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. All three have business interests that directly are related to the cause of taking action on climate change. They argue that climate change represents a financial and business opportunity on the scale of the industrial revolution at the turn of the 19th century. Mr Holmes a Court also has made it widely known that he is motivated by a personal animosity towards Josh Frydenberg, who is in Climate 200’s sights in the seat of Kooyong.
Mr Holmes a Court was a pioneering supporter of wind energy in Australia, promoting a community ownership model for Hepburn Wind near his Victorian rural property in Daylesford. He says the Hepburn project has given him international standing. It also has been a morality tale in how renewable energy projects can be hungry for government support but not always very good at providing the amount of promised electricity or shareholder returns.
As Brad Norington reports, the project received a $1m grant from the Victorian government last year, reportedly to stay afloat. Mr Holmes a Court has declared the project one of his proudest achievements but he stepped down from the board in 2015 when the company recorded a $166,568 loss. Mr Holmes a Court’s investments today include Australian-registered Decarb Ventures, which is pursuing “global” investment in clean-energy technology.
He has shareholdings in several companies that profit from investment in renewables and clean energy. These include 5B Holdings, in which he has a reported stake along with Mr Turnbull and Future Superannuation Group. Mr Holmes a Court has up to six private companies that appear to be family-owned or owned with others and have unknown business interests. He is also a director of a charity called the Australian Environmental Grantmakers Network, which was set up to identify environmental funding opportunities. And he created Embark Australia, which is registered as a charity, as a “a non-profit consultancy helping communities share in the benefits of local renewable energy”.
Mr Holmes a Court denies he will profit from his political activities but he has confirmed that Climate 200’s election strategy is based on winning seats from moderate Liberals with the aim of holding the balance of power in federal parliament. This is all a perfectly legal and valid part of Australian democracy and no one is suggesting Mr Holmes a Court is doing anything wrong. But voters have a right to be fully informed and must be aware before they cast their ballot what this would entail. In the event of a hung parliament it is likely there would be a range of independents across the spectrum of political views. What makes the “teal” candidates supported by Climate 200 different is that they are targeting Liberal-held seats on a platform that mirrors the concerns of the Greens, who mostly have decided not to run against them. It is most likely that, if elected, teal candidates would join with the Greens to deliver government to Labor or seek to guide climate policy from the crossbenches. The latest Newspoll results indicate strong support for minor parties and independents, making the prospect of minority government a possibility. The chaotic performance by Labor in recent days in trying to explain how its climate policy would operate gives little reason to expect the party will be any match for sophisticated lobbying on the issue.
Despite claiming to have the most fully modelled and costed climate policy offered to the electorate, Labor has been unable to explain clearly whether its planned cap-and-trade carbon trading scheme through the existing safeguards mechanism will apply to coalmines. The bottom line, according to Labor climate spokesman Chris Bowen, is that the treatment of coalmines under Labor’s net zero by 2050 policy will be decided on a mine-by-mine basis after the election. Greens leader Adam Bandt has said any negotiations around delivering government to Labor in the event of a hung parliament would centre on no new coal or gas projects being developed.
A coalition of Greens and teal independents poses a radical challenge in the event of a tight election result. Voters deserve to know what it would mean for jobs, industry and living costs for everyday Australians who do not stand to profit from policies that will benefit the commercial interests of those who, despite protestations to the contrary, are pulling the strings.
More Coverage
Read related topics:Climate Change