Opinion: Green challenge for government
Richard Kingsford
12 December 2007
The winds of political change that swept the Howard Government out of power derived some of their force from environment issues, principally climate change. But other equally challenging environmental issues face this nation. Despite the much lauded water plan, not much effective policy has been delivered that would get Murray-Darling rivers off their sick bed. We have heard virtually nothing about overharvesting of fish or the bulldozing of bush in the tropics for agriculture. Our lists of endangered species grow longer. Environment issues are ever increasing, exacerbated by poor governance.
Today's 'environment' is a very different beast to the one that existed at the time of Menzies. Then the 'environment' was where we went swimming, canoeing, camping, fishing, hunting and bushwalking. Now we understand much more of its complexity and connections, inevitably informed by a rich diet of wildlife documentaries and scientific knowledge. No corner of the earth is unseen or unaffected by humans. More than six and half billion of us are munching through the planet's life and habitats - about another 500 people will need to be fed, watered and have bodies clothed by the time you have finished reading this. A shrinking environment and growing human footprint inevitably mean that the environment influences decisions at all levels, including the economy. The head of Treasury, Dr Ken Henry, in his advice to economic policy advisers, listed two among the eight medium term economic challenges as the: "increasingly challenging issues in the inter-relationships between energy, climate change and water" and "some deeply entrenched failures in environmental management, including loss of biodiversity, partly due to a history of exploitation of the 'commons'".
Traditionally, environment was the cellar dweller of government - sometimes where the promising young Ministers might be blooded but more often the final step before retirement. Now 'environment' is front and centre of politics given the gravity of the issues facing us, although you would not know this given the cautious and unimaginative election policies. But who would have thought we would have two environment ministers? The future will need well thought out and courageous environmental policies, backed by effective implementation by institutions and bureaucrats. There is much ground to make up, given the subjugation of the environment, the 'ignorance is bliss' attitude of the former government to scientific evidence, and the politicisation of the environment. In any politically charged atmosphere, truth has been the casualty, along with those that utter it.
How sad the debates and resignations of key government scientists over climate change now seem, particularly given the number of senior liberals that have since come out of the climate change closet. The eminent ecologist, Dr Charles Krebs, resigned his honorary position at CSIRO last year when told any contact with the media required permission from the top, a personal affront to his freedom of speech as a scientist. In 2005, I felt the hot breath of government indignation after producing a publicly funded national report on the conservation of rivers with my colleagues. Among other things, we recommended establishing an Australian Heritage River system to avoid the mistakes of the past and encourage inclusiveness. Final proofs in hand and after exhaustive government input into drafts, I approached the ABC 7.30 Report who showed interest. The wrath of government, begun I was told by the then Environment Minister, was meted out by the bureaucracy. Accusations ranged from breach of contract (paid out six months before) to a conclusion that the report was deeply flawed. A few months later, with perhaps a dozen word changes out of 110 pages, the report was buried on the government web site - no hard copy available and little influence on policy.
In recent years, government environment agencies have become increasingly politicised, often replacing strategic policy based on science with knee-jerk responses that line up with electoral cycles but do nothing to solve long term problems. Burgeoning public affairs units make sure no environment affairs become public unless they are good news. Out there in the environment, investment has been the highest ever but focused primarily at small spatial scales, guaranteed to deliver good news but often ignoring the elephant in the room - the degrading environment. Few scientists are collecting long-term data and those that are have limited funds. You don't need to worry about what you don't know.
If we are going to solve the escalating environmental problems with commitment and scientific expertise, policy has to be informed by good science that can be publicised without fear or favour. We need to get back to strategic scientific investment in the environment problems and solutions and away from political spin, even if it reduces political degrees of freedom. This is not the black arm band view of the environment but a truth that demands strong leadership and courageous and effective policy development and implementation.
Richard Kingsford, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of New South Wales
Canberra Times
