Australian Climate Policy and Diplomacy: The Transition Years (PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne, 2014)

Since the 1980s, scientists have reported that Australia is highly vulnerable to the physical impacts of global warming. Yet despite the warnings, successive Australian federal governments have failed to adopt strong greenhouse gas mitigation policies. The most common explanation for this lack of action has been the political influence of Australia’s powerful mining industry over the policymaking processes and key decision makers.

This thesis seeks to investigate this explanation by examining the relationship between the Australian federal government and the Australian fossil fuel mining lobby during the period 2006-2009, which covers ‘transition years’ between the downfall of the Howard Coalition Government and the early years of the Rudd Labor Government. It critically examines Guy Pearse’s and Clive Hamilton’s popular ‘greenhouse mafia’ hypothesis, which argues that the lobbying tactics of the domestic fossil fuel lobby have largely determined Australian climate policy and, by implication, Australia’s climate diplomacy. 

The thesis renovates Robert D. Putman’s two-level games model to explain continuity and change in climate policy and diplomacy. First, it alters the model to better suit the institutional processes in Australia’s parliamentary system. Second, it develops an expanded understanding of power – which focuses on discursive power – that is then translated into Antonio Gramsci’s dual concepts of hegemony and historic bloc. Third, it defends a social constructivist approach to interests.

The central argument of the thesis is that while the activities of the ‘greenhouse mafia’ have certainly been important in shaping Australia’s failure to respond adequately to the climate challenge, it is the existence of a hegemonic discourse about industrial competitiveness (shared between governments of different ideological persuasions and industry actors) that has dominated the construction of Australia’s national interest, and shaped and constrained domestic climate policy and Australia’s international negotiating positions. However, differences in the major political parties’ foreign policy discourses and identities – internationalist versus alliance-focused – have constrained the way the two-level game has been played by the Rudd Labor Government compared to the Howard Coalition Government, which helps to explain variation in climate diplomacy and domestic policy over time. (Available here)

Reviews

This thesis constitutes an outstanding piece of research. The broad conceptual framework is convincing and sophisticated, drawing on research on Gramscian conceptions of power, Putnam’s two-level games thesis, and key recent developments in discourse theory (on storylines, for example) to provide a coherent and compelling theoretical base for analysis. The analysis itself is first rate, and Parr demonstrates familiarity with key secondary literature on these questions while also providing the most detailed analysis of climate policy in this period I have seen. Finally, the arguments are genuinely convincing, and demonstrate a nuance and sophistication of thought for which the author (and his supervisor/s) should be congratulated. In short, this is one of the very best PhD dissertations I have read, and Parr and the supervisors of this dissertation should be encouraged entering it in the Australian Political Studies Association dissertation prize, for example…Once again I want to congratulate Parr on producing an excellent dissertation that makes a genuine contribution to the literature and demonstrates both significant effort and insight. This was a pleasure to read and I have no hesitation in recommending the award of the PhD degree. 

   – Matt McDonald, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Queensland, December 2014 

It is my opinion that the work presented by Mr Benjamin Parr represents an original, significant, and creative contribution to knowledge about the influence of forces on Australia’s domestic climate policy and international negotiation positions during 2006 to 2009. The candidate’s thesis has certainly contributed significant research that has not been assembled to date. I recommend that the candidate should pursue publication of aspects of his doctoral research in peer-reviewed international journals and also explore publication in its entirety as a book. It is a groundbreaking study refuting the widely accepted arguments to date of Guy Pearse and Clive Hamilton. This research should be of significant interest to academic researchers internationally, as well as those in government, business and industry, and NGOs in Australia, in demystifying why successive Australian federal governments have failed to adopt strong greenhouse as mitigation policies.

   – Ros Taplin, Professor of Environmental Management, University of NSW, January 2015