Getting the facts on the Great Ferry Fiasco has been a tortuous process. But after last week’s parliamentary interrogation of the two government business enterprises (GBEs) involved, we’re finally getting our heads around the story.
It seems the smooth shift of TT Line’s Victorian terminal from Melbourne to Geelong two years ago gave it the idea that it could manage without TasPorts. “Should TasPorts have said ‘get out of the way, we’ll do it’?” asked interim chairman Damian Bugg before answering his own question, “Yes, they are the port infrastructure entity.”
But they didn’t, and TT Line was left holding the baby – or rather an empty cot, a patch of dirt that should have been the Mersey terminal. Last week’s interrogations left hanging the question of money, but there were indications that funding in one or or both GBEs may have been one key driver of the debacle.
But the critical element was political leadership. Instead of drawing the warring agencies together to bring the necessary resources to bear, if necessary from outside, Michael Ferguson told them to figure it out between them – “learn to play in the sandpit together”. That cost him his place in Jeremy Rockliff’s cabinet, but the blame should be spread more widely.
Running two Bass Strait ferries is a big deal for this small island state. But mitigating and adapting to climate change is orders of magnitude bigger, far more complex, and unfolding not over years but generations. As the Australian state with easily the smallest revenue base, in dealing with climate change Tasmania faces exceptional cost challenges.
Meaning, exceptional leadership challenges. The government must look beyond the false business model of government focused on the bottom line (as GBEs are set up to do), and get its head around something above and beyond balancing the books: political leadership. Unless and until that mindset shift happens, we’ll make no headway with climate change.
The funny thing is, focusing on getting things done rather than on the financial cost can turn out to be surprisingly cost-effective because it involves engaging with others, and when humans come together they can be amazingly effective.
The huge array of items that successive Tasmanian governments have produced in response to climate change over the years – action plans, sectoral plans (the plans come in many forms), activities, commitments, grant programs, loan schemes, community forums, business initiatives and support packages – reflects a government and community feeling its way in this entirely novel space.
There’s a long way to go, but there are signs of progress. Over the past month or two the state government has sought to fill some yawning gaps in the policy space with a succession of document releases, coordinated by its hard-working Climate Change Office under director Sarah Russell. There are six emissions reduction and resilience plans, one for each economic sector – transport, agriculture, energy, waste, industrial processes and product use, and finally, land use, land use change and forestry. And there is a “roadmap” drawing the sectoral plans together.
To play its part in mitigating climate change, Tasmania – which contrary to government messaging is a big per-capita emitter by global standards – must know how much carbon is being emitted and where it comes from. With public input it must also determine what needs to be done to bring those emissions down.
But while emissions “savings” are mentioned there is no robust evidence in either the roadmap or the sectoral plans that this is happening. It’s disturbing that the forestry sector plan makes no mention of the potential impact on the state’s emissions profile of opening up new areas for native forest logging, raised last week and not denied by the government.
Also released are Deloitte’s detailed assessment of the state’s climate risks and opportunities and the government’s response. The latter has been signed off by environment minister Madeleine Ogilvie, now in the climate change hot seat.
She said the government is “committed” (that word again) “to build resilience across our state” while ensuring that Tasmanians understand risks and are equipped to make “informed decisions” around climate change. Acknowledging the need for collaboration, she flags a government focus “on building connections across our economy and society”.
All of which is entirely appropriate, eminently desirable… and not enough. The missing bit is leadership at the top.
To make up for Tasmania’s lack of financial resources we need a whole-of-community effort. That calls for the premier and each of his ministers to articulate the supreme challenge of a rapidly-changing climate. If they can do that with conviction, they will find the community falling in behind them. And they will have nothing to fear from parliamentary opponents.