Public service to feel the heat on climate change under Albanese government

On the ABC's Vote Compass site, climate change was easily the most important issue for voters. It was mentioned more than twice as many times as the next two issues (cost of living and the economy) combined. It's an online survey which people choose to complete, so not as reliable as a well-designed random sample survey, but still indicative of the public mood.

With the perspective of distance, international observers (such as Time, Bloomberg, the South China Morning Post and CNBC) overwhelmingly reported the election result in terms of climate change.

Labor went into the election differentiated from the Coalition on climate - although not by much. It had a small target strategy. That reflected the experience of previous elections, where ALP climate policies have been subject to vigorous attack by the Coalition for allegedly increasing energy costs, causing job losses, creating new taxes and any number of other bad things.

This time round the ALP policies were not headlined "climate change". They appeared as part of the Powering Australia plan. Amongst them were investment in renewables, cheaper electric vehicles, industry energy efficiency and community batteries. The ALP emissions reduction target was marginally more ambitious than that of the government. It did not put forward a complicated carbon pollution trading scheme: a sensible move given the experience of the previous election.

Of particular interest to the public service was a promise to reduce the Australian Public Service's emissions to net zero by 2030.

It is not clear whether the same policy will apply to the much larger number of Commonwealth public sector employees who are not part of the public service (like the ABC, CSIRO, research corporations, the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police).

The ADF should be at the forefront. In the United States, our major defence partner, the military has been working to address the threat of climate change and implement mitigation measures. They see climate change as a significant global security issue.

It is a view Australia now shares. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said as much in his first international meeting with the four countries known as the Quad. In a subsequent press conference in Tokyo, he observed "climate change is not just about the environment, it's about the shape of our economies, but also our national security".

Labor wants to remain a small target on climate, not expose itself to criticism. It will face pressure from independents and Greens to be more ambitious than the policies it took to the election. The government will aim to resist that pressure, not only for good democratic reasons (parties that win government should stick to their promises) but also politics.

Labor does not want to be outflanked by the Greens. Mr Albanese is more aware than most of the prospect of Greens taking Labor votes. Although he won comfortably in the most recent election, in the past Greens candidates have come close to unseating him in his inner Sydney seat of Grayndler. In the recent election a previous Labor seat, Griffith in Brisbane, fell to the Greens. You may recall this was the seat held until 2013 by former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd, who once declared climate change the greatest moral challenge of our time.

We now have a minister for climate change and energy in the cabinet, with a senior and experienced minister in Chris Bowen. The public service will need to work to this new structure.

The government does not want to be portrayed as having ceded leadership in climate change policies to either independents or Greens. With this in mind Mr Bowen while in opposition deliberately crafted a set of policies that can mostly be implemented from within government without needing legislative approval. This means that even if the Greens have a strong position in the Senate - vote counting is still going on, but it seems likely - their numbers won't affect climate change policy. If there is no legislation around which to negotiate, nothing to amend or block, then the Senate is relatively powerless to change government policy.

At the same time, Labor cannot be too unambitious on combating climate change. The strength of public opinion cannot be ignored.

Something working in the government's favour is that public opinion affects businesses as well as politicians. So business is responding.

We are seeing more and more examples of ambitious private sector emissions reductions targets (often well ahead of either the previous or present government's aims) and practical energy saving or renewable energy sourcing actions being taken to achieve those targets. It is not only business management but also investors who are worried about climate change. The pressure by shareholders to force energy company AGL to drop its demerger plan is just one of many examples.

Some sectors are particularly concerned because the negative impacts of climate change directly affect them - the insurance industry is a prime example. Others are taking action because it is good customer relations. Either way, the private sector is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This, alongside efforts by households in areas such as adoption of solar energy, makes it much easier for Australia to achieve its targets.

That does however put pressure on the public service. Failing to reach net zero by 2030 would not be a good look. That is only eight years (or two and a bit election cycles) away. Meeting the target will require a sense of urgency.

Departments will need systems for measuring, monitoring, and reporting on their emissions. Without reliable measurement a target is meaningless. It is also important that the measurements be made public, regularly. Without transparency, voters are not going to trust vague government assurances that the targets are being met. With transparency comes actions - departments and agencies will need to make progress through implementing changes to reduce emissions. Reporting may be fairly simple for APS agencies, based on current energy reporting requirements. The new and important element will be information on progress towards meeting the 2030 target.

This means a change of mindset on the part of senior managers. In conversations with senior public servants, publicly and privately, there is a high level of complacency about climate change. At a recent public forum, responding to a question about climate change, both retired and current officials opined that it could be addressed through better procurement or technology.

It is not clear why they take this view, despite the massive body of evidence that more serious action is required. The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change devoted a whole chapter on Australasia, with solid projections of the negative impacts if global warming is not brought under control.

It may be that over almost a decade in government the Coalition appointed or ensured the promotion of people aligned with its views on climate. If so, those people need to move. Or it might be simply a case of protective colouring adopted by public servants seeking to get on with ministers who were climate change sceptics or adherents to the "technology not taxes" slogan. If the latter, this is relatively easy to repair. An evidence-based approach will quickly convince those people of the need for action.

Among younger public servants, a serious commitment to combating climate change will be welcomed. From Vote Compass, "climate change was considered the most important topic across all age groups but was more commonly listed among 18- to 29-year-olds". Globally, younger age groups are more concerned about climate change than older aged people.

Motivating young workers and retaining the best is a challenge for all employers including the APS. An incidental benefit of adopting ambitious climate change programs across the APS is that it will help address this challenge. Everyone wins.