I was prompted by a very good friend – let’s call this person my very own conscience – that I have not really made too much of a song and dance about the state of energy, climate etc policy here in Australia. With the country ablaze, she simply asked – did you march? And I confess I did not march last Friday. So I have done what no self respecting retired public servant should do (having responded to many too many Ministerials in my life I know the pain they cause – sorry all current Public Servants) – I have written directly to those (ir)responsible.

Here’s my letter. Maybe you can write directly too?

Prime Minister

I am was one of the quiet Australians, but I am compelled to voice my concerns to you, the government of Australia.

With over forty years in policy, research, regulatory and operational agencies, in both federal and state governments, I have been writing as publicpolicyeconomistatlarge for a little over a year at my blog www.doesthismakesense.blog. I think you ought to read it – and I am not saying that just because it is my blog, my readers tell me there are a lot of very useful thoughts in there.

In my last blog I talked about Tim Harford’s new podcast – Cautionary Tales. I have listened to more of them since then, and am noticing a theme, not too disconnected from the actions I see in your government. Not that your government has a monopoly on this – but just that I want to share these thoughts with you most urgently. I also highly recommend a listen to this if you or your advisors have not already done so.

The theme is nicely captured in the saying often attributed to John Maynard Keynes (not sure if he ever really said it but let’s give it to him anyway) “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.”

Harford has a list as long as your arm of failures – commercial, financial and policy – where failure to change one’s position in the face of new information has lead to very poor outcomes. There is no shame in changing course, but there is in holding onto ideas, beliefs whatever you call them, when better, newer information becomes available that really requires a rethink. I call that intelligence.

In the 12 January interview with Scott Morrison and David Speers on Insiders, we got a lukewarm suggestion that your government may, I repeat may, just be able to say out loud – but ever so softly lest you wake the sleeping deniers – that there is a phenomenon called global warming, it is caused by human activity (sort of) and we are part of the solution – heck we signed up to the Paris agreement didn’t we?

So grudging. But again, there was reluctance to face up to the bigger picture. That Paris target for Australia was small. We are told – but I haven’t seen the figures or evidence to support this – that we will more than meet these. Lots has been said about carryover credits etc so I won’t pursue that here. But really we have only some sham policy now masquerading as the reason we are achieving the Paris targets that were in large part achieved due to actions taken by previous governments. Then what? A void? Looks like it to me.

Oh and while we’re at it – what about a decent energy policy? Don’t get me started on the paucity of policy in this area. When you have had the energy industry itself crying out for policy certainty for the best part of a decade and the best you can do is we want 100% reliability and lower costs? Listen government, if we don’t get our house in order and pronto, we won’t have enough generation, we’ll have transmission in the wrong places and our aging coal generators will have long fallen over. Get with the agenda!

You are suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance if you think we can ‘evolve ‘ our policy – not sure what that means – ‘without a carbon tax, without putting up electricity prices and without shutting down traditional industries upon which regional Australia has depend for their very livelihood’.

So, when was there a reformist policy that was successful that didn’t involve winners and losers? The thing is, to have a policy in the first place so losers aren’t cast aside with no transition for them. Your policy failure now will ensure that coal industry workers face a bleak and uncertain future in the medium to long term.

Change is coming whether you like it or not. If we don’t change we won’t have an economy, our children won’t have a future, we won’t be able to afford your resilience and mitigation efforts. Wise though these may be.

The economy may leave you behind and decide to go ahead with changes to the energy mix as technologies and costs shift – as it seems to be doing now. But with a lack of policy, your regional industry workers will be left stranded, mismatches in investments in the tiers of the energy sector may occur but most likely band-aid solutions not long term investments will continue to rule until they too become unviable – and all that comes at a cost.

Let me finish by saying that if governments don’t understand how to do good policy – policy based on analysis, evidence and data, not whims and ideology but cold hard facts, they will need their bureaucrats – because that is one thing they are very good at. They will offer you alternatives – one of which is do nothing (or very little) and explain what the likely consequences of inaction are – as well as active options and their consequences. Knobbling the bureaucracy as the Prime Minister seems intent on doing,  so it loses this vital role, will only lead to shoddy policy and poor outcomes – but maybe some brilliant headlines. Is that all you want?

Geraldine Anthony

cc

The Hon Josh Frydenberg Treasurer

The Hon Angus Taylor Minister for energy

The Hon Sussan Ley, Minister for the Environment