Esquema de Tiro de Carga por Baja Frecuencia

Data on the theme of the nation-state as primary actor can be divided into three topics, all of which are possible influences on the state, and potentially argue that the state is not the primary actor in international affairs: public opinion, the influence of industry, and domestic political influence.

5.6.1 Public opinion

In both data sets, there are clear references to the lack of influence public opinion has over policy. Robert Hill acknowledged the public support for the environment:

Reliable surveys show that almost three-quarters of Australian people

believe that protection of the environment is of equal importance to economic growth (Robert Hill, 6).

public surveys tell us that the community rates environmental protection as being of equal importance to economic growth (Robert Hill, 12).

Media commentaries also demonstrate how strong public opinion on the environment was:

A community survey carried out by the network showed 80 per cent of people were concerned about global warming (Daily Telegraph, 4).

People are still interested in the environment but the government doesn't listen (The Sydney Morning Herald, 17).

The US and Australian Governments stand isolated in their opposition to the protocol despite majority public support for action to tackle the climate change crisis in both countries (The Sydney Morning Herald, 17).

5.6.2 Industry influence

There is a lot of data suggesting the realist claim that nation-states are the main actors in international relations is not correct in this instance. The media

commentary data highlight the favourable attitude of the government towards certain industries, which implies those groups influence the government. The Daily

Telegraph commentary emphasised the anti-Kyoto position of industry:

For some years now [the government] has maneuvered a path between pacifying the agricultural, industrial and commercial interests strongly

opposed to the protocols, a green movement itching to see them ratified, and an oscillating and faintly bemused general public (Daily Telegraph, 2).

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Howard Government openly favoured industry:

The announcement by the Environment Minister David Kemp, reads as yet another attempt ... to convince a number of industry groups that the

government remains committed to the central pillar of its climate policy: business as usual (The Sydney Morning Herald, 23).

The Australian and The Australian Financial Review had commentaries that also suggested the government was partial to industry:

Mind you, the Liberals haven't given up their day job: keeping the big end of town happy. The Howard Government still refuses to sign the Kyoto

Protocol, facilitates uranium mines and brings in wider fossil fuel subsidies (The Australian, 34).

Two years ago, the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network (an association of 13 industry groups) helped fund the research on which the Government's Kyoto position was based (The Australian Financial Review, 1).

David Coutts, executive director of the Aluminium Council was quoted in The Australian Financial Review as stating:

The government promised not to do anything that would hurt Australian business (The Australian Financial Review, 1).

The politicians also indicated in their statements that the government was sympathetic to the concerns of industry:

we will not allow efficient producers to be disadvantaged by the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (Robert Hill, 14).

It is through government's partnerships with industry that we will best meet the challenges posed by climate change (David Kemp, 27).

quite a bit of that $1 billion dollars that the government is investing in greenhouse gas emission today is going on incentives [to industry] (David Kemp, 7).

The aim of the working groups is to allow business and Government to work together and discuss the range of options that face Australia (David Kemp, 7).

For whatever governments might do, it is this growing attitude within the business sector ... which will really make the difference (Robert Hill, 11).

A comment in The Australian Financial Review suggested industry had a noticeable influence on the government:

The chief executive of Woodside Petroleum, John Akehurst, last week demanded that the Federal Government delay ratification until the international situation was clearer (The Australian Financial Review, 1).

Unless Mr. Akehurst thought his demand would be taken notice of by the government, there would have been little sense in his making such a claim.

The following comment is interesting because it shows the failure to differentiate between political and industrial will:

a lack of political and industrial will means we risk economic sanctions and pariah status at the approaching sequel to the Kyoto greenhouse summit (The Australian, 7).

David Kemp used language that seems to show the government was trying to keep industry happy:

But the industry message to sum up basically is that the government is very much on the right track (David Kemp, 7).

This comment in The Australian Financial Review also suggested the government prioritises industry interests:

According to business ... the government ... has forgotten one of the

underlying principles of its greenhouse policy - to do nothing to damage the competitiveness of Australian industry (The Australian Financial Review, 1).

David Kemp made further statements that provide clues to the level of influence over policy that industry had. He acknowledged that industry had policy influence:

This has provided a real opportunity for industry to contribute directly to the Commonwealth's policy process (David Kemp, 22).

He also stated that policy is developed with industry in mind:

it is environmental legislation that has been introduced in close consultation with those in the industry (David Kemp, 25).

I mean we are working very closely with industry to achieve these objectives (David Kemp, 25).

through the Government-Business Dialogue on Climate Change, Energy Minister Macfarlane and I have sought business perspectives on how we can achieve further abatement. We're especially interested in business views on technological solutions and foundations for longer term response, as well as cost effective abatement opportunities; economic adjustment issues; how to avoid long term emissions lock-in; and balancing policy flexibility with a reduction in investment risk (David Kemp, 27).

5.6.3 Domestic politics

The speeches of Robert Hill questioned whether the federal government could be autonomous on this policy issue. He warned that actions by the state governments could halt the ability of the Federal Government to achieve its policy outcomes:

Many of the decisions that will affect Australia's ability to meet its Kyoto target fall within the constitutional responsibility of the States (Robert Hill, 11).

the States and some industry groups are telling the Commonwealth to "butt out" of that decision-making process, despite our concerns about the

national interest in meeting our obligation and the impact this will have on the global environment (Robert Hill, 13).

So it was with complete amazement and a great deal of disappointment that we watched the legislation which will deliver these outcomes become bogged down by ideological obsessions and political point scoring by the non-government parties in the Senate (Robert Hill, 16).

David Kemp demonstrated the difference in policy between the two parties:

all we've heard from the Labor Party so far is the suggestion that somehow or other, all you need to do is to sign up to Kyoto and everything will be alright (David Kemp, 31).