Tory Shepherd: South Australians left in the dark as politicians keep politicking over state-wide blackout

RAIN and floods have left South Australia a quagmire — both literally and politically, writes Tory Shepherd.

• The AEMO report into statewide blackout in plain English
• ‘Multiple faults’ led to huge South Australian blackout, preliminary report
• Power blackout destroys embros at Flinders Fertility

RAIN and floods have left South Australia a quagmire — both literally and politically.

My eminent colleague, state political editor Daniel Wills, has done an admirable job of trying to pick a path through the mess left in the wake of the storm. Not an easy task, but have a look at his work from the past week.

The explanation from on high so far is Rumsfeldian: “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

The oversimplified explanation is that we know the mega storm triggered a series of events that led to the state going dark, and we know that our reliance on wind power may have played some part at some time.

We don’t know that for sure, and we don’t know how large a part.

.

We are still in the dark, and it’s full of errors. And yet our politicians keep politicking merrily along as though they have seen the light and want to convert us all.

Premier Jay Weatherill says it’s not about renewables. The Feds say it’s all about renewables. They’re both dealing in known unknowns. We just don’t have a complete picture yet, and might not for another six months, when the Australian Energy Market Operator comes back with its full review.

In the meantime, we have to depend on the experts, and particularly with the experts intimately involved with the system.

But those pesky experts either have too many unknowns for our politicians; or their knowns don’t match up with the politicians’ political motivations.

We all have to rely on people who know more than us to provide us with information. There’s a complex interplay of trust; who do they work for? What are their vested interests? Have they got it wrong before?

We have to change as the information changes. But that’s not easy politics.

The original information was that wind power had absolutely nothing to do with what happened. Subsequently it turns out it may have played a role of some kind.

When you’re wading through the bog and the solid ground is shifting, you have to find the next solid bit, not just soldier on into the murk.

The further you struggle on, the harder it is to get back to a secure foundation.

And in the political sphere that’s when it starts to look like a desperate backflip.

This Federal Government is talking about being the government of negotiation, of compromise. It has already proven its willingness to change tack on superannuation and its savings. But then it has dug its heels in on the same-sex marriage plebiscite despite a mounting push from experts (not just Labor) on the harm that could cause.

The Government will always face image issues when it changes its mind, even when all it’s doing is taking the newest set of facts into account. In the real world, the best answer would be to plot your course better before you set out, and tread more carefully once you do.

In the political world, that can be seen as dithering or — much worse — as losing a media opportunity.

Do you rush in headlong and hope you stay on solid ground (which could happen for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull if renewables turn out to be at fault), hope your fancy footwork can help you once things go sideways, or hit the bog and pretend you’re waving, not drowning?

These are the options that seem to bog down our policymakers, and increase the risk of a damp squib response.