Political Lobbying: In Conversation with an MP
In conversation with your MP
This article is for those who would like to approach their MP to discuss climate issues. It contains two hypothetical MP conversations, some meeting tips and some ideas to get you started on a conversation with your MP.
A Hypothetical MP Meeting
Lobbyist: Thank you for agreeing to meet with us and congratulations on your election victory. As is now accepted universally, Australia needs to transition to clean, renewable energy sources.
If we are to prevent catastrophic climate change, we need ambitious carbon reduction targets.
What’s your opinion about putting a price on carbon?
MP: The Australian Electorate has made it very clear in the past that it does not want a carbon tax, in any shape or form.
Lobbyist: I totally understand - Australians do not want any new taxes.
I’d love to tell you about a way to put a price on carbon, that is not a carbon tax. In fact, it would pay Australian householders money in the form of a dividend. It is called the Australian Climate Dividend (ACD). Implementing the ACD would help us achieve significant emissions reductions within the next 20 years.
Have you heard about this scheme?
MP: No, it sounds intriguing. Tell me more.
Lobbyist: The ACD is a Fee and Dividend scheme.
Here’s how it works, in general terms-
A fee is charged to the big carbon emitters on the carbon that they produce at the source, for example at the mine, oil well or port of entry.
This fee would start at a modest amount, say at around $50 per tonne, and would rise steadily each year.
The money that is collected from the fee is then returned directly back to Australian households in the form of a Dividend.
The beauty of this scheme is that increasing the costs of fossil fuels both discourages their use and encourages the use of alternative, renewable energies. Thereby, moving us in the right direction if we want to reduce emissions.
And providing a dividend to consumers means that any extra costs to them can be met.
The Australian Taxation Office would monitor the collection of the fees and distribution of the dividends to Australian householders.
MP: Sounds interesting. Have you got figures on the money that householders would receive from the dividend?
Lobbyist: Yes. It is estimated that the lower 20% of households would be $1,300 p.a. better off.
75% of all households would receive financial benefit. Subsidies and regulations for renewable energy would no longer be necessary and could be removed.
Estimates suggest the rollbacks have the potential to save the Commonwealth $2.5 billion per year.
MP: Do any other countries have comparable schemes?
Lobbyist: Yes, Canada and Switzerland currently do, and this scheme may be introduced in the US.
MP: Very interesting…
Lobbyist: It was great to meet with you. Can I leave you with an information sheet and some other resources for you to read and to discuss with your colleagues?
MP: Yes, please. Thank you for meeting with me today.
Meeting Tips
The hypothetical meeting outlined above is not entirely typical of our approach because we are talking more than listening. This happened because we took the opportunity to summarise some handy talking points about the ACD.
Notice how we did practise some of these meeting tips:
We asked open questions, e.g. ‘what is your opinion of putting a price on carbon’.
We reflected back what the MP said, e.g. ‘we understand that Australians don’t want any new taxes’.
If the opportunity had arisen, we could have found common values. If the MP had said “the last thing I am going to do is throw people out of work for the sake of the environment”, we could have replied “nobody wants to throw people out of work”.
In the normal course of events, we would spend more time listening than talking.
-
Lobbyist: Thank you very much for agreeing to meet with us and congratulations on your election win. We are delighted that climate action played such a prominent role, and we are very encouraged by what we have seen of the new government.
If I may, I would like to start by putting you on the spot! What do you know about our preferred climate policy, the climate dividend?
MP: I think I know the main points. You want to put a steadily rising fee on carbon over the next 10 to 15 years and distribute all the proceeds equally to everyone on the electoral roll. Is that about it?
Lobbyist: Yes, that’s it exactly. What do you think of it as a policy tool?
MP: Well, that’s a tricky one. You and I both know that what you propose isn’t technically a tax, but we also know that the Coalition is 100% guaranteed to call it that. They even started calling their own safeguard mechanism a carbon tax during the election campaign when we said we wanted to strengthen it. Every poll that has ever been done on the topic reveals that people are strongly against a carbon tax. I can’t see anyone in Australian politics going down that path.
Lobbyist: We understand that carbon pricing is a political minefield in this country and maybe Australia isn’t ready for it yet. That doesn’t alter the fact that an overwhelming majority of experts regard it as an essential component of climate policy and one that could be the difference between success and failure in managing emissions. Let’s put this aside for a moment. With the election proving beyond doubt that Australians want stronger action on climate change, how might you be able to set a higher target for 2030?
MP: That’s another tricky one! We went to the election with a very clear promise of 43% by 2030. In the past, whenever we promised more, we lost the election. Weaker climate policies have won all the elections for the last decade. It would be arrogant of us to push ahead with a stronger target now. Also, let’s not forget that we are moving very quickly to improve our climate response across the board: we are amending the safeguard mechanism, we are introducing a new capacity mechanism to ensure supply during the transition, we have our Powering Australia policy which will see $20 billion spent on the electricity grid, 85 new solar banks, 400 community batteries, $3 billion spent on renewables manufacturing, 10,000 clean energy apprenticeships, development of an electric vehicle strategy, and a whole lot more. That’s what we promised and that’s what we intend to do.
Lobbyist: We have certainly noticed the amazing things you are doing and the speed with which you are doing them, and we are very grateful. The only reason we are wondering about a stronger target is that virtually every expert under the sun thinks that 43% isn’t nearly enough. Most climate scientists suggest that we need a target of 75% for 2030 if we are going to keep the temperature increase well below 2 degrees. What is your response to that?
MP: Even if everybody wanted that, I don’t see how we could achieve it. The transition from fossil fuels to clean energy is immensely complicated. There are literally thousands of elements to consider and there is a very real risk of leaving fossil fuel communities behind if we aren’t careful. Suppose we placed a ban on our fossil fuel exports after 2030, what would happen to the communities that rely on that trade for their wellbeing?
Lobbyist: We agree that fossil fuel communities mustn’t be left behind. But don’t the number of people vulnerable to climate change outnumber those reliant on the fossil fuel economy?
MP: Yes, but unfortunately it’s not that simple. You can’t just deliberately jettison whole communities. Coal is going to be around for a long time. You only have to look at what’s happening in Europe right now to see that the transition to renewables is slow and sometimes you have to fall back on old ways. Australia is a major fossil fuel exporter. We stand to lose much more than countries which import their energy. It will be a very delicate balancing act for us to maintain an equilibrium during this process and there will be plenty of tough decisions to make.
Lobbyist: We can certainly agree on that! What merit is there in the idea that the impact on emissions should be triggered by environmental laws when approving new fossil fuel developments?
MP: Well, we are committed to reviewing the EPBC Act and while I can’t predict the outcome of that review, I can say that everything is on the table.
Lobbyist: That is very good to hear. Regarding the safeguard mechanism that you referred to earlier, what do you say to people who contend that there is an element of carbon pricing implied in it due to the requirement for underperforming emitters to buy carbon credits?
MP: The safeguard mechanism is another thing that is under review, so it’s a little premature for us to be discussing it. However, we do intend to use it to calibrate the lowering of emissions from our 200 most carbon intensive companies, companies like aluminium smelters, chemical manufacturers, steel manufacturers, power plants, etc. These 200 companies are responsible for more than a quarter of our emissions. They will each be given a baseline which they mustn’t exceed. This baseline will be arrived at by careful consideration of all the relevant factors and in consultation with them. The baseline will reduce every year, by around 4% or 5%. Companies that can’t cope with this will have to offset their excess emissions. To answer your question, it’s not like a comprehensive carbon price, but there is a cost to those who don’t adhere to their targets.
Lobbyist: Thank you for explaining that. It will be very good for the mechanism to be used properly for a change. But wouldn’t you like to hear about a mechanism that would provide an incentive for every single producer to decarbonise, and every single consumer as well?
MP: I sense a trap but go on.
Lobbyist: The climate dividend does precisely that in a highly effective manner and it’s extremely simple to implement and administer.
MP: Full marks for perseverance, but I don’t think it’s time has come.
Lobbyist: Well, I’m afraid we are going to keep banging on about it until its time has come and hopefully that won’t be quite as far off as you imply. In the meantime, I hope we can meet on a regular basis to continue our conversation about climate policy.
MP: We certainly can.
Conducting a Practice MP Meeting
This is something you can do in your local group or you can attend the CCL lobbying workshop. The idea is to conduct a group meeting in which one CCL member masquerades as a Labor MP and the other members play the part of the lobbyists. The group should firstly assign these roles to each other:
MP
Timekeeper
Appreciator (the person who is going to express genuine appreciation to the MP for something they have said or done in the past)
Askers (perhaps take turns at responding to the MP and asking the next question)
Next, spend a little time planning your meeting. Review the notes outlined below and form an idea of what key questions you want to ask.
When you are ready, start the meeting with the 20 second formal introductions, the appreciation, checking how much time is available, and then firing off your opening question.
Here are some suggested questions:
Are you familiar with CCL’s preferred climate policy, the Australian Climate Dividend, and its potential to dramatically speed up our emissions reduction? (If yes, seek their opinion about it. If no, ask if you can explain it briefly).
What is your plan to discourage carbon emissions across the entire economy?
What is your personal view of the need for a bipartisan, comprehensive plan informing how we are going to reach net zero by 2050?
How will Australia fare if our major trading partners place carbon tariffs on our exports, and how can we respond to this?
We are hearing a lot that Australia has great capacity for renewable energy and the opportunity to be a leader and exporter with great economic benefits, yet new coal mines and gas fields are still being approved. Wouldn’t it be better to redouble our efforts to include workers from the fossil fuel industry in the clean energy revolution?
Would you agree that now the Government has committed to net zero emissions by 2050, a clear plan outlining how we are going to achieve this, with bipartisan support would position Australia as a global leader on climate change?
According to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, we need a much stronger target for 2030 than the Government’s 43%. Is there a way the Government can embrace this without breaking its election promise?
Resources
Remember, you can team up with other CCL members to practise your lobbying skills by enrolling in our Climate Action Workshop.
