What should voters expect from the Minister for Climate Change, Sustainable Energy and Alternative Transport, Nick McKim?
Expectations should not be too high as McKim has to convince all his Cabinet colleagues from the Labor Party that any action taken will reflect well on them and not just on the Greens.
A simple first step would be to change the name of one of the portfolios. Their is no doubt that the climate will continue to change and that could be viewed as a success given the Ministerial title but I doubt that even Her Majesty’s Loyal Tasmanian Opposition wish for the predicted outcome of the path we are embarked upon without a global agreement to take comprehensive, effective and timely action to limit the climate instability.
Whilst a long debate could ensue, removing the word change would be a simple enough action. After all Change is not the desired outcome. Ask those with a beachfront property or a business dependent on snowfall. Ask a farmer in the drier part of the Midlands or a grandparent considering the future.
Whilst these matters may be separated by the titular allocation they are inextricably linked together in the solution to Tasmania’s future.
Tasmanians want a liveable environment and a competitive economy and to meet those desires the way energy is supplied and how we move around the State will have to change. The business community which benefits from government projects will have to change the projects they benefit from and forestry will have to adjust to a world of carbon pricing or it’s the gurgler for the all of our efforts.
I have already flagged the need for the Minister to ensure there are no legislative impediments to the construction of wind farms in the ocean. Of course their have to be some planning limits so any problems such a viewfields and navigation are addressed.
Combined with the placement of wave power stations such energy farms would have other advantages seen elsewhere where the pylons behave as artificial reefs. Like nuclear reactors, power that can be produced nearer the point of consumption entails fewer transmission losses and much of Australia’s current population is coastal. Here is a new Hydro waiting for development and export of the expertise.
What does an island do with such a power surplus besides underpin the value of the existing Hydro based power system. This year has seen the storage low around 35% and with a wet year it may even rise above 50% in October. Demand on the system will not lessen whilst rainfall is predicted to decrease.
The Danes are trialling electric vehicles on one island to see if the surplus power from wind farms can be stored in the batteries of electric cars, vehicles that do point to point commuter transport but spend a lot of their time at rest.
Its all well and good to restore mass transit systems such as trams of light rail downtown or to provide for those who can cycle but those modes do not suit all living in the cities and towns that have developed without thought about the supply of liquid fuel or the impact of burning hydrocarbons on the climate.
If in the first term a modest fleet of electric vehicles supported by downtown charging stations and free parking develops in the Capital and the way is opened for more complex energy developments by the second term a government could move to build its own in ocean power station under the auspices of the Hydro’s offshoot Roaring Forties.
It’s work to replace the dated road construction and forestry industries which are bound to fade in their importance in the economy.
In managing a changing world some leadership, risk taking and inventiveness is necessary. Lets see if McKim’s Greens can show that in key areas of interest.
Sue Neales, Mercury Saturday, Extract:
With the two senior Greens members now an integral part of the new Labor Government — or “inside the tent pissing out”, as some Labor MPs have privately explained the Labor-Greens deal — the Greens as the third political party in the Tasmanian Parliament were always going to have to find a new role post-election.
No longer could they possibly hope to occupy the high moral ground in the House, adopting the time-honoured role of “keeping the bastards [on both sides] honest”.
Nor could the Greens continue to act as the chief political opponents to Labor — a task they have executed in the past four years to the detriment of two former deputy premiers in Bryan Green and Steve Kons and, ultimately, premier Paul Lennon.
The Greens describe their new arrangement with Labor in different ways. Tim Morris cutely says his colleagues are just helping out, “assisting” Labor with its ministerial workload.
Ms O’Connor and Mr McKim explain it as a model, not a coalition, all about showing maturity, guaranteeing government stability and offering new ways and “paradigm shifts” of thinking in how to run and lead a state like Tasmania.
Manifestly obvious, though, at the end of this first parliamentary week were the strategic benefits to the returned Bartlett Government of the new Labor-Greens era of co-operation on the floor of Parliament.
No longer was the articulate Mr McKim — easily the best and most damaging performer in Parliament — firing all barrels in their direction. Instead his sights and cutting barbs were turned on the Liberal Opposition benches and hapless leader Will Hodgman.
It left Mr Bartlett to sit relatively quietly, preserving his ammunition for strategic moments and appearing almost statesman-like.
Presumably that is Labor’s tactic, to use the debating skills and repartee of Mr McKim and the lashing tongue of Ms O’Connor to full effect on the Liberals while allowing the Premier to stay out of the rough and tumble of the parliamentary bearpit.
The dilemma for the Greens — particularly for the three Greens MPs who are not Cabinet ministers — is that it remains patently unclear exactly what their new role is now their party has joined hands at the top with Labor.
Are Tim Morris, Kim Booth and newcomer Paul O’Halloran compliant government backbenchers or genuine opposition members?
