Recursos, Modalidades y Estrategias de Lectura

In May 1989 Prime Minister Hawke decided to make a statement on the environment, taking advantage of a rare confluence of circumstances. First, two peak national farming and conservation organisations, usually seen as representing antithetical interests, had made a joint submission to the Government proposing a national land management program, providing an opportunity for consensus politics. Second, environmental initiatives

306 _{Interdepartmental Committee on Conservation/Heritage Areas and Resource Assessment/Development,} ‘Conservation/Heritage Areas and Resource Assessment/Development: Report of IDC’ (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories file 88/3076) 4.

307 _{The writer has found no reference to these principles in official records subsequent to the Cabinet} decision endorsing them.

308_{Cabinet Minute 10619, above n 300, 2–4.} 309 _{IDC Report, 8.}

310 _{Graham Richardson, Letter to Senator the Hon Peter Walsh, Minister for Finance, dated 26 October 1988} (PM&C File CA3287). Unusually, no doubt reflecting an inability to agree, the joint submission even included some inconsistent individual recommendations, cast as alternatives.

82

remained popular: the Labor Party’s pollster was advising that ‘whenever we mention the environment our vote goes up’.311

Drafting the Statement

The files reveal a series of draft statements. Although the first draft was produced by officials from several agencies, it appears that most subsequent drafts were developed simply by iterating them between the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO); some drafts bear annotations apparently from officials in PM&C or political advisers in the PMO, while the authorship of others is unclear. Hawke did commence a Cabinet process by writing to ministers, but this was apparently abandoned, as the final statement was endorsed by Cabinet ‘without

submission’, suggesting that if any document was circulated to ministers, it was only the draft statement itself.312

The first draft opened with a ‘theme’ rather than a goal of intergenerational equity:

We have a responsibility to pass on to the children of our generation a world which has been enriched — and certainly not reduced — by our existence.313

Consistent with the 1988 decision, the draft simply reiterated the three RAC principles and the NCSA-derived policy principles.314 _{The stronger draft of 29 May specified SD as the} Government’s ‘Objective’ and began to elaborate on that term, while by 15 June a

departmental brief to the Prime Minister canvasses the use of an environmental qualifier to SD:

We assume that you would want to explicitly endorse the concept of environmentally sustainable development.315

311 _{Phillip Toyne (Australian Conservation Foundation) and Rick Farley (National Farmers’ Federation),} ‘National Land Management Program’, Submission to Government, (PM&C file 89/2499, Part 1); Craig Emerson, (Economic Adviser to the PM), ‘Meeting with Graham Richardson on Environmental Strategy’, Memorandum to Prime Minister, 8 March 1989 (PM&C file 89/2499, Part 2).

312 _{See Prime Minister, (PM&C file 84/2499, NAA) and similar letters of the same date to several other} ministers; ‘Prime Minister’s statement on the environment — Without Submission’ Cabinet Minute 12825 (NAA A13979, 12825).

313 _{Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, ‘First Draft — Prepared by Departments for Discussion} Only: Prime Minister’s Statement on Environmental Issues’ (PM&C file 89/2499, Part 1) 1.

314 _Ibid.

315 _{Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, ‘Outstanding Issues Relating to the Environment} Statement’, Brief to the Prime Minister, 15 June 1989 (NAA A1209 2499, Part 2).

83

This language implies that officials were seeking confirmation of discussions with political advisers.

At this point Minister Richardson wrote to the Prime Minister, apparently (and surprisingly, given the Cabinet divisions discussed above) out of concern that the statement would lack policy substance. He provided a suggested outline of the statement that included several references to sustainability concepts, including that development be ‘ecologically

sustainable’. Even more surprisingly, Richardson urged hard decisions (see Box 3.4). My dear Prime Minister

Before you depart for Europe I would like to raise with you my concerns about the content and focus of your environment statement.

At a time when public interest in the environment is at a peak I am concerned to ensure that your Statement on the Environment does more than cover old ground. Any Statement which does little more than identify environmental issues, list existing Government

programs and flag some areas where funding will be directed in the next financial year will achieve little.

Increasingly concerned Australians … will be expecting a much more forward looking and innovative approach than the typical incrementalism and that the Government needed to address hard and controversial issues.

…

The future will require some sacrifice on the part of individual Australians because continued protection of the environment … will mean a more considered approach to resource and energy use.

If we are to convince the electorate that we are serious about protecting the environment I consider that the statement will need to address hard and controversial issues in some way.316

Yours sincerely

GRAHAM RICHARDSON

Box 3.4 Extracts from Environment Minister’s Letter to Prime Minister

Richardson went on to suggest the Government consider increased Commonwealth power through constitutional change; policy integration including through resource accounting; ‘fiscal measures’ (presumably taxes) to encourage environmentally sound management by both public and private sectors; and that ‘sufficient resources are mobilised in a

316 _{Graham Richardson, Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Letter to} Prime Minister Hawke, 15 June 1989 (NAA 1209 2499, Part 2).

84

coordinated way’, ie significant budget decisions beyond the small increases that Cabinet had already approved to support the statement; and a ‘commitment to being ecologically sustainable’ through policies and strategies, including through sectoral strategies similar to the then-mooted national forest strategy.317 _{The Prime Minister did not act on the advice to} address hard decisions but some aspects of the finalised statement do correspond to some of Richardson’s suggestions.318

In the meantime, the brief of 15 June was returned to the department with annotations, including the word ‘(ecologically)’, adjacent to the phrase ‘environmentally sustainable development’. This is at least consistent with Balderstone and Toyne’s claim that political advisers added the ‘ecological’ to SD, despite objections from officials, because SD had become ‘all things to all people and an excuse for any sort of action or non-action’.319 Kerin simply records that the decision to add the word ‘ecological’ was taken in Cabinet,320 but irrespective of the exact sequence of events the evidence points to the adoption of ESD as a policy goal as being politically driven, not policy driven, without any formal analysis of the meaning of the concept or implications of adopting it. In the same vein, annotations on different drafts, some of unclear authorship, suggest a focus on political tone rather than on policy substance as evidenced by this annotation, probably from the PMO:

You sound pretty sensitive about any perception that we might sacrifice growth for the

environment: statement needs to be visionary, not hard-nosed economic rationalist. It is a question of tone.321

A subsequent drafting annotation, its typewritten form as part of a draft suggesting that its author was an official, attempts to respond to this but also seems somewhat confused:

317 _Ibid.

318 _{One draft reveals officials as contemplating substantive measures to follow a policy cycle of measure-} monitor-adjust, including by one of the approaches suggested by Richardson, that of resource accounting, but this predated Richardson’s letter and, like some elements of Richardson’s letter, appears to have been motivated by a desire to ensure consistency with previous ministerial statements rather than the need to translate policy into on-ground outcomes: See PM&C file 89/2499 Part 1 (NAA 1209 2499, Part 1). The note does not record which minister made statements to this effect, or in what context. The file note predates the Minister’s letter, but the alignment between the two documents may arise from Environment Department officials providing an advance copy of Richardson’s letter.

319 _{Toyne and Balderstone, above n 294, 180. The advisers said to be responsible for this action were Simon} Balderstone and Craig Emerson. Richardson’s letter had suggested the term ESD but it is unclear whether this was drafted by officials or political advisers.

320 _{Kerin, above n 295, 538.}

85

These principles have been taken from the UN’s Man and the Biosphere program. The source should be identified and their importance to maintaining future development options and preserving the quality of life to be enjoyed by future generations of Australians emphasised. That is, the concept of environmentally and economically sustainable development needs emphasised [sic]. The statement needs to be both visionary and hard-nosed rationalist —- this is a matter of tone.322

It seems unlikely that the ‘Man and the Biosphere’ program was the source of sustainability principles as that program was oriented to scientific research and the establishment of biosphere reserves and the draft already included the NCSA and RAC principles.323 _Later still, an annotation directed the drafter ‘not too much on principles — they end up as meaningless motherhood crap’.324 _{While the record is incomplete and at times unclear, what} is clear is that this highly abbreviated process left some significant loose policy ends trailing from a major commitment.

The Statement

The finalised statement, ‘Our Country, Our Future’ (the 1989 Statement) cast the problem in stark terms of an urgent need to cease squandering the Earth’s assets to ensure a viable future for our children, not only for utilitarian reasons but for the intrinsic value of nature. (See Box 3.5 for this narrative.)325 _{In responding to this need, the statement rejected a ‘no} growth’ option, as most Australians put a high value on economic development and growth. There was no need to make a ‘stark choice’ between the environment and growth because, as the Brundtland Report had pointed out, humans could meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations by living within the productive capability of the environment. The Government thus recognised that environmental aspects were integral to economic decisions and committed itself to the principle of ESD.

OUR COUNTRY OUR FUTURE Statement on the Environment

The Hon R J L Hawke AC Prime Minister of Australia

July 1989 …

322 _{Draft Statement dated 6 June 1989, PM&C file 89/2499, Part 1, folio 110.}

323 _{See Michel Batisse, ‘The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for Environmental Conservation and Management’} (1982) 9(2) Environmental Conservation 101.

324 _{NAA A1209, 2499, Part 1, f 115.}

86

The threat posed by continuing environmental degradation is no longer hypothetical … We have little time to spare …to proceed with ignorant and unthinking ways risks further irreparable damage.

We cannot continue to squander the Earth’s assets. If we are to leave a viable future for our children we must better understand the planet, and make a conscious decision to protect and live in harmony with it.

…

Preservation of the environment should be underpinned by more than just human-centred survival or economic or aesthetic considerations. While plants and animals are useful … [they] have intrinsic value …

…

Yet all reasons point to the same conclusion — the environment is critical and … greater efforts are needed to protect it.

…

Most Australians put a high value on economic development and growth, so that everyone in the community can enjoy a better standard of living.

A ‘no growth’ policy may have attractions for some who are fortunate enough already to enjoy a comfortable standard of living. It is not a policy which is likely to be favoured by those who have difficulty in meeting their basic needs …

…

As the World Commission on Environment and Development … has pointed out, we have the ability to make development ecologically sustainable. The task is to ensure that we meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. … When decisions on economic developments are being made, full weight must be given to the costs to society of proposed activities, as well as the benefits.

Ecologically sustainable development means economic growth that does not jeopardise the future productive base. Renewable resources are managed so that they are not permanently depleted … …

Decisions of this kind … are a recognition that our quality of life, and that of future generations, depends on living within the productive capability of our environment.

The Australian Government recognises the fundamental link between economic growth and the environment. It recognises that environmental aspects are an integral part of economic decisions. It is committed to the principle of ecologically sustainable development.

Box 3.5 Extracts From ‘Our Country Our Future’, Statement by Prime Minister Hawke326

The Government ‘continue[d] to endorse’ the four objectives from the NCSA, and

reiterated the three RAC principles,327 _{without the statement adverting to the differences of} approach they represented. However, if ESD is taken to be the overriding social goal, the statement can be read coherently and consistently with SS, as endorsing a paradigm of

326 _{Ibid, 2, 3, 4 (original emphasis).} 327 _{Ibid 4–5.}

87

maximising economic welfare subject to ecological constraints to ensure that the productive capacity of nature is maintained.