6. MARCO TEÓRICO
6.1 COMPETENCIA
6.1.3 Estándares Básicos de Competencias del Lenguaje
DECEMBER 1992
353 Hamilton, ‘Ecologically Sustainable Development: Implications for Governance in Australia’ above n 64, 67.
94
…
AUSTRALIA’S GOAL, CORE OBJECTIVES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE STRATEGY
The Goal is:
Development that improves the total quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends.
The Core Objectives are:
• to enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations
• to provide for equity within and between generations
• to protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life- support systems
The Guiding Principles are:
• decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long and short-term economic, environmental, social and equity considerations
• where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation
• the global dimension of environmental impacts of actions and policies should be recognised and considered
• the need to develop a strong, growing and diversified economy which can enhance the capacity for environmental protection should be recognised
• the need to maintain and enhance international competitiveness in an environmentally sound manner should be recognised
• cost-effective and flexible policy instruments should be adopted, such as improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms
• decisions and actions should provide for broad community involvement on issues which affect them
These guiding principles and core objectives need to be considered as a package. No objective or principle should predominate over the others. A balanced approach is required that takes into account all these objectives and principles to pursue the goal of ESD.
Box 3.7: Statement of Goal, Objectives and Guiding Principles from National Strategy
on Ecologically Sustainable Development 1992354
3.3.4 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment
354 Council of Australian Governments, ‘National Strategy on Ecologically Sustainable Development’ (COAG 1992).
95
As if policy on environment and development was not already complicated enough, Hawke’s ‘New Federalism’ initiative of 1990 added a further layer of complexity. In announcing the initiative, Hawke had identified the environment as an area for improved federal cooperation, against a backdrop of general goals of efficiency, international competitiveness and improved service delivery, and invited the States to join the ESD process.355 This theme of cooperation was maintained when Cabinet began detailed consideration of the issues, with the advice to Cabinet focused on roles and
responsibilities. In relation to policy, this required ‘a more secure framework for environment policy making’; States should be involved in Commonwealth policy
development where this impinged on their interests, but more significantly environment policy development ‘should be integrated with broader economic and social policy, such as the policy of sustainable development’.356 These reforms should be embodied in an intergovernmental agreement.357 Governments subsequently agreed to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE), referring primarily to roles and responsibilities but also referring in passing to ‘the umbrella … of more cooperative intergovernmental environment policy’.358
Negotiation of the Agreement
Tasmania chaired the working group. A key tension between the Commonwealth and States was on broad objectives. The States, led by NSW, placed ‘strong emphasis on rationalisation of responsibilities of the different levels of government, in order to
establish clear accountability and to put an end to “forum shopping” by pressure groups.’359 In contrast, Commonwealth officials proposed that the agreement should ‘not concentrate on demarcation of roles but should be essentially about development of improved
intergovernmental processes … to address major environmental issues.’360
355 R J L Hawke, Prime Minister, ‘Towards A Closer Partnership’, Transcript of Speech delivered at National Press Club ,19 July 1990 (Prime Minister, Canberra) 1, 4, 9.
356 Australian Government, ‘Commonwealth–State Relations: Environment Policy Paper’ Cabinet Memorandum
7475 (NAA A14039, 7475) 2–3. The proposal was endorsed by Cabinet in Cabinet Minute 14510 (NAA A4250 7475).
357 Ibid.
358 Special Premiers’ Conference, ‘Towards a Closer Partnership’, Communique, Brisbane, 30/31 October 1990 (Special Premiers’ Conference 1990) 11.
359 Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Deputy Secretary, ‘Working Group on Environmental Policy, Second Meeting: Brisbane 20 February 1991’, Note for File (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories file 91/3931).
96
At the second meeting the chair circulated a ‘Chairman’s Paper’ on ambit, raising among other things whether the agreement would include ‘a philosophy and/or principles and/or a process which all jurisdictions will follow to determine environmental policy …’.361 Initially, the States led the drafting process and draft three of April 1991 included only a brief reference to SD in a clause on interpreting and giving effect to the agreement:
1.3 In reaching this agreement the parties have had regard to a number of important considerations which should also be closely considered in interpreting, applying and giving effect to the agreement. Those considerations are …
…
(F) The concept of sustainable development provides a foundation for the integration of environmental and economic activities and for balancing the interest of current and future generations.362
Dissatisfied with the state drafts because of their strong ‘states’ rights’ flavour,363 the Commonwealth circulated its own draft agreement, including ‘principles of environmental policy’ (PEP), essentially a set of ESD principles.364 The process of developing these principles is not on file and so it is not clear why the draft did not simply adopt a
formulation from the 1989 Statement or the NSESD Discussion Paper, but at a subsequent meeting of the drafting group, following ‘considerable discussion’ of the draft principles of environmental policy, the Commonwealth undertook to provide Working Group members with further information regarding their source.365 That advice was that the principles stemmed primarily from Australia’s involvement in preparations for the then-forthcoming Rio Conference and that in assembling the principles the Commonwealth had also drawn on the interim policy statement on ESD in international development cooperation released
361 John Ramsey, ‘Ambit of Intergovernmental Agreement on Environmental Policy — Some Questions’, Chairman’s Paper, 1991, (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories file 90/7722).
362 New South Wales Government, ‘Draft Agreement No. 3’, circulated by NSW on 2 April 1991, para 1.3 (F) (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories file 91/2895).
363 Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, First Assistant Secretary Environment and Conservation Policy Division, ‘Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment’, Brief to Portfolio Minister, 16 May 1991 (Environment Department file 91/6384).
364 Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, ‘Commonwealth Draft 1, IGAE’, dated 15 May 1991 (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories file 91/02264).
365 Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Deputy Secretary, (Commonwealth Working Group Representative), ‘Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment: Principles’, memorandum to members of the Working Group on Environmental Policy, 28 August 1991, (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories file 91/8670.)
97
by the Commonwealth in February 1991.366 These sources are at Appendices 4 and 5 respectively. The documents are too long to analyse here but the salient point is that, while both documents had Cabinet endorsement, that endorsement was given, as on other occasions, without the benefit of advice that analysed the principles, explained their implications, or linked them to other ESD policy statements.367
With the States apparently satisfied with this explanation, there was little further debate on the draft principles recorded in subsequent notes of drafting group discussions and indeed the final wording of the PEP in the IGAE is very similar to that in the first
Commonwealth draft. In seeking Cabinet authority to finalise the agreement, Minister Kelly noted that only one of five disagreed matters related to the principles.368 Draft clause 3.3, favoured by the States, provided that ‘[e]conomic growth is a necessary prerequisite for environment protection’. The Commonwealth saw this as conflicting with its commitment to ESD ‘because it does not reflect the need for an integrated approach between economic well-being and environment protection.369 The finalised provision was weaker, to the effect that strong economies can enhance the capacity for environmental protection.370 At the end of the day, it is unclear whether negotiations concerning the principles of environmental policy were straight-forward because the principles were generally agreed, or because they were seen by the States as secondary to the major imperative of preventing the
Commonwealth from moving into areas traditionally of state jurisdiction.371
366 Ibid; see Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, ‘Ecologically Sustainable Development in International Development Cooperation: An Interim Policy Statement’ (Australian International
Development Assistance Bureau 1990).
367 See Australian Government, ‘United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED: Brazil 1992) — Australian Objectives for Meetings of Preparatory Committee’ Cabinet Submission 7800, 12 March 1991, (NAA 14039, 7800); Australian Government, ‘Ecologically Sustainable Development in International Development Cooperation’ Cabinet Submission 7672, 11 December 1990 (NAA 14039, 7672). 368 Australian Government, ‘Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment’, Cabinet Submission 8409, 29 November 1991 (NAA 14039 8409) Attachment C.
369 Ibid 4. Interestingly, in their ‘coordination comments’ on the submission, neither the Treasury nor other economic departments defended the existing draft. Several supported the proposed change while others did not address this issue in their comments: see Attachment E to the submission, ‘Coordination Comments’. 370 Council of Australian Governments (COAG), ‘Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment’ (IGAE), cl 3.3.
371 Subsequent attempts by states to have their assessment and approval processes ‘accredited’ under Schedule 2 to the IGAE suggest that several states were quite fixed on an approach of having the Commonwealth endorse their processes and then bow out of the assessment and approval of individual developments, despite early Commonwealth advice that the Commonwealth could not, by giving ‘full faith and credit’ to state decision-processes, then simply bow out of any involvement in individual decisions, in the face of Commonwealth legislation conferring a number of roles on Commonwealth decision-makers. Hollander points out that there was no real state commitment to ESD or environment protection more generally: see Robyn Hollander, ‘ESD, Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations in Australia’ (2015) 22(1) Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 21, 24.
98
Finalised Principles of Environmental Policy
The IGAE was finalised in 1992. Section 3 of the agreement concerned the Principles of Environmental Policy and is reproduced in Box 3.8.