Law governing Bureau of Meteorology must change to reflect climate crisis, says former chief
Exclusive : Rob Vertessy says there was a baked-in cautiousness in the bureau about discussing climate change under the Coalition A former chief executive of the Bureau of Meteorology says the 67-year-old law that underpins Australias weather agency needs to be updated to bring it in line with the modern-day climate crisis. Dr Rob Vertessy, who left the bureau in 2016 after five years in charge, said the Meteorology Act 1955 should be revised to give the bureau a broader environmental intelligence remit. I do think [the act] is of an age that it isnt really relevant to the challenges of a planetary crisis, Vertessy said. The public interest would be better served if we mandated an agency to have a broader remit. Given what the country is facing, there should be more of an emphasis on that. Last week the bureau came under fire from former staff and scientists who claimed it had been cowering in the corner on the climate crisis an allegation the agency rejected. Former bureau scientists told Guardian Australia that almost a decade of Coalition governments had meant climate change had become politically sensitive within the organisation. Sign up for our free morning newsletter and afternoon email to get your daily news roundup Vertessy led the agency through the government of Tony Abbott a known climate change sceptic who once described climate science as absolute crap . Vertessy told Guardian Australia there was a baked-in cautiousness in the BoM that was established in all government agencies under conservative governments. This had reinforced a policy paralysis problem in responding to the climate crisis because the dominant public narrative underrates both the urgency to act and the extent of change needed. The consequence of this is that the public get a muted view of the climate situation from government agencies, he said. It is more grim and dangerous than most people realise and thats problematic. Vertessy told Guardian Australia he had never been directed by a minister to refrain from public commentary on climate change or even tone down my style but there were various cues that you get to calibrate your approach. Nonetheless you do come to understand you cant just go out there and keep creating heat in the media environment for the government, because that backfires on your agency, he said. The best-case scenario then is you are frozen out and not consulted. The worst case is you are punished by being overlooked in future budgets. It is all very unspoken and, dare I say it, grey and shadowy. Sign up to Afternoon Update Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you whats happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion He said public servants understand and accept that it is verboten [forbidden] to criticise government policies but at the science-policy interface there is some grey area when it comes to public comment. Reporting scientific facts was uncontentious, he said, but if doing that invokes media and public criticism of government policies then friction arises and this is certainly common in the area of climate change. The Meteorology Act established the role of the bureau and its director but it predates concerns about climate change. Its uncontentious that weather and forecasts is core business, Vertessy said. But theres less formal direction when it comes to climate. When it comes to climate change, a mandate for being the voice for it is not reflected in the 1955 act. Email: sign up for our daily morning and afternoon email newsletters App: download our free app and never miss the biggest stories Social: follow us on YouTube , TikTok , Instagram , Facebook or Twitter Podcast: listen to our daily episodes on Apple Podcasts , Spotify or search "Full Story" in your favourite app Instead, Vertessy said, governments, ministers and the bureaus director of meteorology (which is the title of the chief executive) have had degrees of discretion about whether [the bureau] is in that game or not. Vertessy said there had probably been a greater appetite for senior officials to hold forth on climate change with progressive governments than conservative ones. My sense is that the current government is more welcoming of expert opinion on climate change matters as it seeks to build community support for policy action, he said.