Australia's energy transition has been hobbled by three distinct failures: the Liberals' policy whiplash that achieves little, the Nationals' agrarian caution that pines for Eden lost, and Labor's substitution of announceables for architecture - a glossy, frenetic politics that talks to consumers while industry and the underlying system barely features.
Introduction
Energy policy in Australia has drifted into a strange, unserious mode. The Albanese government increasingly treats the energy system as a political gadget - a consumer product to be marketed, accessorised and continually refreshed - rather than infrastructure that must work at all times. The communication is glossy and frenetic; the underlying system barely features.
The problem isn't the programs themselves - many have technical merit. It's the absence of any visible hierarchy, sequencing or system plan connecting them. Without cheap industrial energy, Australia cannot process its own minerals, rebuild manufacturing, or capture value from the transition. Yet what gets communicated are retail offers, not nation-building infrastructure.
Consumer programs as marketing
Consider the flagship "three hours free electricity" scheme. There are genuine technical reasons for it: midday solar gluts create negative prices, and shifting household demand helps absorb oversupply. Load management is real grid work. But the scheme is pitched like a telco promotion - pick your free window, shift your usage, save a few dollars - and applies only in DMO jurisdictions (New South Wales, South Australia, south-east Queensland) to households with smart meters, subject to retailer uptake and household participation. The actual reach is a fraction of the national grid. Yet it's communicated as clever consumer relief, not as one modest piece of demand-side management in a system still missing transmission, firming and storage at scale.
Battery subsidies follow the same pattern. Behind-the-meter storage has real value for grid stability and household resilience. But there's a crucial difference between household batteries scattered across suburbs and utility-scale storage strategically placed to support the grid. One is useful; the other is essential. Yet the subsidy is marketed as cost-of-living relief - a lifestyle upgrade - rather than as part of a coherent storage strategy that explains how much distributed and how much centralised capacity we actually need. The framing reinforces the idea that the transition is something you do behind your own meter, not something that depends on collective infrastructure that remains unbuilt.
Extending the $300/year energy subsidy is the same thing again. It reduces household bills by a few dollars a week, offers temporary relief, and polls well. But it does nothing to address the structural cost problem or restore the industrial energy advantage Australia has lost. It makes the punters happy without making industry competitive again.
Lifestyle optimisation, not nation-building
This is the heart of the problem. The government talks to consumers, not citizens. Every intervention is framed as a retail offer: your rebate, your free hours, your battery, your control. It is the vocabulary of lifestyle optimisation, not nation-building. And glib communication doesn't build trust - it erodes it. When programs are oversold and targets repeatedly missed, the public stops believing any of it.
Targets without credible delivery
The real damage comes from the stretch targets. Labor's 82 per cent renewables by 2030, unveiled alongside a new 2035 emissions goal of 62-70 per cent below 2005 levels, are presented like product releases: shiny numbers, horizon dates, crisp graphics. They are theatrical more than architectural.
The government did release a Net Zero Plan and six sector-specific plans alongside the 2035 target. These documents exist. But they have been criticised for lacking detailed implementation pathways. The finance sector noted the plans "do not give strong indications of future policy frameworks" beyond existing policies. The independent Climate Change Authority found that the pipeline of renewable projects falls short by approximately 8 gigawatts of what is required to achieve the 82 per cent target. The International Energy Agency projects only 58 per cent renewables by 2030 based on current deployment trends - well below the government's goal.
The problem isn't that planning documents don't exist - it's that they arrive without the granularity, resourcing commitments, or delivery mechanisms that would make them believable. What gets communicated are headline targets; what gets buried are the widening gaps between ambition and build-out, and the silence on what happens when - not if - deadlines slip. Grid-scale projects face multi-year approvals, community opposition and workforce shortages that targets ignore. Each missed milestone deepens the credibility deficit.
The missing industrial strategy
And nowhere in this retail flurry is there a strategy for what Australia once had and desperately needs again: cheap energy for industry. Australia's aluminium smelters, mineral processing facilities, and manufacturing industries once enjoyed among the lowest industrial electricity prices globally - historically paying as low as $14-27 per megawatt-hour. That competitive advantage, built on abundant coal and reliable supply, is gone. Over the past decade, electricity prices have increased substantially. Energy now accounts for more than 40 per cent of operating costs at facilities like Tomago.
The Tomago bailout negotiations are crisis management, not energy policy. The government has been negotiating emergency support packages - electricity contract relief and production tax credits - to keep the smelter viable. But these are interventions to prevent closure, not a strategy to restore competitiveness. Rebuilding industrial competitiveness requires abundant, reliable, affordable supply at scale - firming capacity measured in gigawatts, not kilowatts; transmission corridors that move power to where industry operates; storage and dispatchable generation that can supply 24/7 at globally competitive prices. Yet the government has no visible plan to deliver it, only emergency interventions when the next facility threatens closure.
What gets lost
Demand-side tools matter - but not at the scale or with the framing the government uses. What disappears is the reality that electricity is not a bundle of lifestyle choices; it is a single, continent-wide machine whose integrity depends on hard, slow, unglamorous engineering. Targets without pathways are political theatre. Retail programs without system design are distractions. And bailouts without energy abundance are admissions of failure.
Communication is a symptom, not the cause
Better messaging won't build transmission lines faster, won't solve community resistance, won't make firming cheaper, and won't restore industrial competitiveness overnight. The glib style erodes trust, yes - but fixing it wouldn't fix the underlying engineering and political economy problems that make the transition genuinely difficult.
Yet symptoms matter. When governments oversell convenience and under-explain difficulty, they burn through the public trust needed for hard decisions. When they announce stretch targets without delivery maps, they train voters to dismiss all commitments as theatre. And when they frame energy as lifestyle choice rather than collective infrastructure, they make it harder to build the social licence for transmission corridors, firming plants, and the patient work that keeps a grid upright.
The real work - transmission, storage, firming, industrial supply - requires years of sustained effort, community consent, and political bipartisanship that survives election cycles. Honesty about difficulty isn't a substitute for doing the work. But without it, the work becomes harder, because every missed promise and every bailout dressed up as policy deepens the suspicion that no one is actually in control.
Australia's energy transition will be won or lost in the unglamorous middle: in planning approvals, transmission construction, storage deployment, and the painstaking rebuild of industrial competitiveness. And in a transition this long and this difficult, credibility isn't a luxury - it's load-bearing infrastructure of its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment